﻿
<hansard noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.2">
  <session.header>
    <date>2023-02-08</date>
    <parliament.no>2</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;" />
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 8 February 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Milton Dick</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Amendment (Annual Members' Meetings Notices) Regulations 2022</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Disallowance</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved at the previous sitting by the honourable member for Fadden on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that the motion be disagreed to.</para>
<para> </para>
<para> </para>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [09:04] <br />(The Speaker—Hon. Milton Dick) </p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>74</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, A. N.</name>
                  <name>Aly, A.</name>
                  <name>Bowen, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Burke, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Burnell, M. P.</name>
                  <name>Burney, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Burns, J.</name>
                  <name>Butler, M. C.</name>
                  <name>Byrnes, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, J. E.</name>
                  <name>Charlton, A. H. G.</name>
                  <name>Chesters, L. M.</name>
                  <name>Clare J. D.</name>
                  <name>Claydon, S. C.</name>
                  <name>Coker, E. A.</name>
                  <name>Collins, J. M.</name>
                  <name>Conroy, P. M.</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Elliot, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Fernando, C.</name>
                  <name>Freelander, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Garland, C. M. L.</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S.</name>
                  <name>Giles, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P.</name>
                  <name>Gosling, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Hill, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Husic, E. N.</name>
                  <name>Jones, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Katter, R. C.</name>
                  <name>Kearney, G. M.</name>
                  <name>Keogh, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P.</name>
                  <name>King, C. F.</name>
                  <name>King, M. M. H.</name>
                  <name>Laxale, J. A. A.</name>
                  <name>Leigh, A. K.</name>
                  <name>Lim, S. B. C.</name>
                  <name>Marles, R. D.</name>
                  <name>Mascarenhas, Z. F. A.</name>
                  <name>McBain, K. L.</name>
                  <name>McBride, E. M.</name>
                  <name>Miller-Frost, L. J.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, R. G.</name>
                  <name>Mulino, D.</name>
                  <name>Murphy, P. J.</name>
                  <name>Neumann, S. K.</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, B. P. J.</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Payne, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Perrett, G. D.</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, T. J.</name>
                  <name>Rae, S. T.</name>
                  <name>Reid, G. J.</name>
                  <name>Repacholi, D. P.</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, A. L.</name>
                  <name>Roberts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Rowland, M. A.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, J. C.</name>
                  <name>Scrymgour, M. R.</name>
                  <name>Shorten, W. R.</name>
                  <name>Sitou, S.</name>
                  <name>Smith, D. P. B. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Stanley, A. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Swanson, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Templeman, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, M. J.</name>
                  <name>Thwaites, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M.</name>
                  <name>Watts, T. G.</name>
                  <name>Wells, A. S.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, J. H.</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A.</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>64</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Andrews, K. L.</name>
                  <name>Archer, B. K.</name>
                  <name>Bandt, A. P.</name>
                  <name>Bell, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Birrell, S. J.</name>
                  <name>Boyce, C. E.</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, R. E.</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S.</name>
                  <name>Chandler-Mather, M.</name>
                  <name>Chester, D. J.</name>
                  <name>Coleman, D. B.</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M. M. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Daniel, Z.</name>
                  <name>Dutton, P. C.</name>
                  <name>Entsch, W. G.</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, P. W.</name>
                  <name>Gee, A. R.</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, D. A.</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, I. R. </name>
                  <name>Haines, H. M.</name>
                  <name>Hamilton, G. R.</name>
                  <name>Hastie, A. W.</name>
                  <name>Hawke, A. G.</name>
                  <name>Hogan, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Howarth, L. R.</name>
                  <name>Joyce, B. T. G.</name>
                  <name>Landry, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J.</name>
                  <name>Ley, S. P.</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D.</name>
                  <name>Marino, N. B.</name>
                  <name>McCormack, M. F.</name>
                  <name>McIntosh, M. I.</name>
                  <name>McKenzie, Z. A.</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, L. S.</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A.</name>
                  <name>Pearce, G. B.</name>
                  <name>Pike, H. J.</name>
                  <name>Pitt, K. J.</name>
                  <name>Price, M. L.</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, R. E. (Teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, S. R.</name>
                  <name>Ryan, M. M.</name>
                  <name>Scamps, S. A.</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, R. C. C.</name>
                  <name>Spender, A. M.</name>
                  <name>Steggall, Z.</name>
                  <name>Stevens, J.</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, M. S.</name>
                  <name>Taylor, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Tehan, D. T.</name>
                  <name>Thompson, P.</name>
                  <name>Tink, K. J.</name>
                  <name>van Manen, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Violi, A. A.</name>
                  <name>Wallace, A. B.</name>
                  <name>Ware, J. L.</name>
                  <name>Watson-Brown, E.</name>
                  <name>Webster, A. E.</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, A. D.</name>
                  <name>Willcox, A. J.</name>
                  <name>Wilson, R. J.</name>
                  <name>Wolahan, K.</name>
                  <name>Young, T. J.</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names />
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>2</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>2</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>2</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 8 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members' business on Monday 13 February 2023. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard </inline>today, and the committee's determination will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The Committee met in private session on Tuesday, 7 February 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 7 February 2023, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 13 February 2023, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Advisory report on the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Thwaites</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes eac</inline><inline font-style="italic">h.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Electoral Amendment </inline><inline font-style="italic">(Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MS STEGGALL: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Stop PEP11 and Protect Our Coast) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 Feb</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ruary 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR TEHAN: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2023</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjour</inline> <inline font-style="italic">ned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS TINK: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's housing stock has lagged behind that of many countries in terms of its thermal performance and the performance of heating, cooling and other energy systems; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) inefficient buildings are unhealthy for occupants and lead to a range of poor respiratory and cognitive outcomes, particularly when inefficient fossil fuels are used indoors for heating or cooking; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to consider incentives and regulation to accelerate building improvements such as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a specific economy wide target for improvement in energy performance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a specific target within the National Energy Performance Strategy for building electrification;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) improving the thermal envelope of buildings through insulation, double glazing, draught-proofing and other initiatives; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) providing assistance to low-income households, in particular those living in rentals and strata buildings, to reduce energy consumption and associated bills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">10 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Tink</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue at a later hour this day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MS MILLER-FROST: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes that the Government:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) has been delivering on its plan for a better future over the 2022-23 summer break;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) is being a responsible and honest government, accountable and upfront with the Australian people in the tough times we face;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) is cleaning up the mess left to us by the Governments of Prime Ministers, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) will continue to deliver targeted and responsible cost of living relief to Australians in 2023 as part of delivering on our plan for a better future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Miller-Frost</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MRS ANDREWS: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Northern Territory Safe Measures Bill 2023 being introduced into the Senate by Senator Price;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the need for immediate action to address underlying issues across parts of the Northern Territory following months of escalating crime incidents; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the lack of urgent action taken by the Commonwealth Government in addressing community concerns in relation to alcohol-related harm across vulnerable communities in the Northern Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Members' business time prior to 12 noon.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs Andrews</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a </inline> <inline font-style="italic">future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR HOGAN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour awarded to Australian citizens for outstanding contributions to our country or humanity at large;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been 40,000 recipients of awards in the Order of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises and celebrates the 1,047 Australia Day 2023 awards recipients, including 736 awards in the General Division of the Order of Australia for meritorious, distinguished and conspicuous service;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) further acknowledges community members recognised through Australia Day 2023 Local Citizen of the Year Awards; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) congratulates all the recipients of awards on Australia Day 2023.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Hogan</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR R MITCHELL: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that Tuesday, 7 February 2023 marked 14 years since the Victorian Black Saturday Bushfires that saw:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 173 lives lost;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) 414 injuries; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) over 3,500 structures destroyed, including over 2,000 homes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) thanks the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) brave men and women of the respective emergency service organisations for their brave work on that day, fighting around 400 individual fires; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) dedicated volunteers who came to the aid of the devastated communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) remembers the people who lost their lives on that day and those who we have lost since then.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr R Mitchell</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MS CHANEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) increased use of unregulated nicotine vaping products (vapes) in Australia, particularly among young people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) serious health implications of the unregulated use of vapes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) increasing community concern about the prevalence and accessibility to vapes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that the Therapeutic Goods Association has sought public comment on potential reforms to the regulation of nicotine vaping products aimed at preventing children and adolescents from accessing vapes, while supporting access to products of known composition and quality for smoking cessation with a doctor's prescription; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to address the problems associated with increased access to and use of vapes, particularly among young people.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Chaney</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that </inline> <inline font-style="italic">consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS STANLEY: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) according to Volunteering Australia's Key Volunteering Statistics, volunteers contributed almost 600 million hours of voluntary work to local communities in 2019;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Australian Bureau of Statistic's General Social Survey estimates that 30 per cent of Australians, aged 15 and over, participated in volunteer work in 2019 dropping to 25 per cent in 2020; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) volunteering contributes billions of dollars in economic value to the economy as well as substantial social and community value;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected the recruitment efforts and operational ability of many local and national charity organisations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) volunteering rates decreased substantially in 2020 and the 2021 Census showed a 19 per cent decrease in volunteering compared to the 2016 data;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) people in our community rely on the critical role of volunteers and any decrease in volunteering numbers impacts the most vulnerable in our community;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government is continuing to provide support through grant programs for organisations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) Australia needs a new approach to encourage people to participate with a greater focus on younger people; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the 'National Strategy for Volunteering' by Volunteering Australia is an important process in modernising Australia's volunteering systems</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) encourages all Australians to volunteer for the betterment of their local communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) expresses support for the organisations and individuals who dedicate their time for the betterment of our communities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 26 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms Stanley</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes </inline><inline font-style="italic">each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 MRS MCINTOSH: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) serious mental health issues are often at their highest two to three years after a crisis, pandemic or natural disaster;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the previous Government made significant progress in supporting the mental health of Australians by doubling Medicare-subsidised sessions through the Better Access initiative; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the current Government has halved the 20 sessions to ten from 1 January 2023;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) condemns the Government for prioritising their budget over the health and wellbeing of Australians; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes the Government's use of the independent evaluation of the Better Access initiative to defend their decision to rip away mental health support from Australians, is disingenuous given that Recommendation 12 clearly states, 'the additional 10 sessions should continue to be made available and should be targeted towards those with complex mental health needs'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mrs McIntosh</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — contin ued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR VAN MANEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the significant contributions made by the more than 180,000 Australians who participate in a variety of motorsports nationwide, every year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that motorsports have a substantial impact on the Australian economy, which:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) is estimated to be worth as much as $8.6 billion a year;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) supports a workforce of over 65,000 people, including:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) 46,800 direct and indirect jobs; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) 18,900 unpaid volunteers and officials; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in 2019 included almost 10,000 events across Australia, from the Grand Prix to club meets, attracting thousands of competitors and fans, boosting local economies through retail, hospitality, and tourism expenditure; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) supports the ongoing development of motorsports in Australia, particularly at a grassroots level.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 23 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr van Manen</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 DR FREELANDER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) skin cancer, particularly melanoma, is and remains a greatly concerning health problem in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Australians require more equitable access to skin cancer checks with the need for greater access through general practitioner (GP) clinics and dermatologists;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) early diagnosis is the key to good outcomes;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) not-for-profit groups, such as the Australian Skin Cancer Foundation and the Cancer Council, are the key to better awareness of skin cancer and the importance of early diagnosis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) diagnosis is being inhibited by the costs involved in GP and dermatologist skin cancer checks; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls for the consideration of a separate bulk-billed GP and specialist item number for skin cancer checks.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 6 September 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">30 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Freelander</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HOUSING: Resumption of debate on the motion of Ms Tink—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia's housing stock has lagged behind that of many countries in terms of its thermal performance and the performance of heating, cooling and other energy systems; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) inefficient buildings are unhealthy for occupants and lead to a range of poor respiratory and cognitive outcomes, particularly when inefficient fossil fuels are used indoors for heating or cooking; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to consider incentives and regulation to accelerate building improvements such as:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a specific economy wide target for improvement in energy performance;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a specific target within the National Energy Performance Strategy for building electrification;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) improving the thermal envelope of buildings through insulation, double glazing, draught-proofing and other initiatives; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) providing assistance to low-income households, in particular those living in rentals and strata buildings, to reduce energy consumption and associated bills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 7 February 2023.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">20 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 DR REID: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes the Government will have delivered cheaper medicines from 1 January 2023 with millions of Australians paying almost 30 per cent less for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) scripts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) for the first time in its 75-year history, the maximum cost of general scripts under the PBS will fall; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government is helping to ease the squeeze on household budgets for millions of Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">(Notice given 30 November 2022.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">40 minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time </inline> <inline font-style="italic">limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Dr Reid</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day — continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 NUCLEAR ENERGY: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from 6 February 2023</inline>) on the motion of Dr Gillespie—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) Australia has been at the forefront of nuclear science and technology since 1953 when the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was established and operated two research reactors at Lucas Heights in Sydney;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) since the Australian Atomic Energy Commission became the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation in 1987, it has operated the HIFAR Research Reactor, and subsequently the OPAL Research Reactor, which has delivered significant benefits for nuclear medicine in Australia and around the world;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Australia has developed one of the world's leading regulatory and safety authorities to oversee the operation of its nuclear industries with the establishment of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) Australia is a signatory to international non-proliferation treaties which is overseen by the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) considers the deployment of nuclear energy to deliver energy security for the nation, as part of Australia's transition to a decarbonised electricity grid, utilising emerging nuclear technologies such as Generation III+, Generation IV Small Modular Reactors and Micro Modular Reactors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further considers the following legislative actions:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) removing the blanket prohibition on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the Minister for Environment and Water declaring, approving, or considering actions relating to the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities as described in sections 37J, 140A and 146M, and paragraph 305(2)(d) of the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline>, by repealing those provisions; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) the construction or operation of certain nuclear facilities as described in section 10 of the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998</inline>, by repealing that section; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) leaving unaffected:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) the other elements of the <inline font-style="italic">Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999</inline>, pursuant to which the Minister would assess any application to establish a facility previously named in the repealed provisions;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) state and territory powers to protect their citizens and the environment from potential adverse radiation impacts; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) the power vested in the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine whether or not to issue a permit under the <inline font-style="italic">Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987</inline> for such a proposed facility.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline> <inline font-style="italic">remaining private Members' business time prior to 7</inline> <inline font-style="italic">.30 pm.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">—</inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">THE HON D. M. DICK MP</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speaker of the House of Representatives</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 February 2023</para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>8</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Presentation</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the 2022 annual report on the implementation of the recommendations from the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard </inline>report.</para>
<para>First, I want to acknowledge and reiterate the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard</inline> report findings—that an unacceptably high rate of people, particularly women, in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces experienced bullying, sexual harassment, or actual or attempted sexual assault whilst at work. This misconduct is unacceptable, and we acknowledge the grave impact it had or continues to have on previous and current staff.</para>
<para>While we commend the progress this parliament has made, we note that there is still much more work to be done to achieve the goals we set 12 months ago. We want to uphold the highest standards of workplace behaviour in line with what is expected of us by the Australian public.</para>
<para>Since the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard </inline>report was adopted by this parliament one year ago, the composition of this parliament has changed. In the 2022 election, we saw the numbers of women increase, as well as the numbers of those parliamentarians elected as Independents without the support of a traditional political party.</para>
<para>These changes to the composition of parliament have no doubt brought its own cultural change. However, the report's findings remain as relevant as ever to all parliamentarians and their staff.</para>
<para>The set the standard report provided a road map for the parliament to implement systemic and cultural changes in a range of areas to make Parliament House and Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safe and respectful places to work.</para>
<para>Over the past 12 months, leaders from across the parliament and departments have responded to the report to progress the 28 recommendations. The <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard </inline>report categorised 28 recommendations by five outcomes:</para>
<para>• leadership</para>
<para>• diversity, equality and inclusion</para>
<para>• systems to support performance</para>
<para>• standards, reporting and accountability, and</para>
<para>• safety and wellbeing.</para>
<para>Of the 28 recommendations, six have already been implemented, for have been partly implemented, and 17 are in-progress (noting many are ongoing measures).</para>
<para>Implementing the 28 recommendations is a shared responsibility across Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, including government, Presiding Officers, parliamentary departments, political parties, and parliamentarians.</para>
<para>Change will come with the continuous commitment and goodwill of members and senators. Today we recommit ourselves with concerted effort and attention to the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Set the standard</inline> review.</para>
<para>Over the next 12 months we should see:</para>
<para>• The expansion of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service to be established as an independent statutory human resources entity providing advice and training to parliamentarians and staff.</para>
<para>• The endorsement of codes of conduct for all Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.</para>
<para>• The introduction of improved health and wellbeing services, including general practitioner services, pharmaceutical and mental health supports.</para>
<para>• The consideration of amendments to standing orders and conventions to improve levels of safety and respect in the chamber.</para>
<para>• The modernisation of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, the MOP(S) Act.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the leadership and commitment of many people for the work completed to date, including the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, as well as the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other party leaders.</para>
<para>The nation is looking to this parliament to show leadership in this space, and the expectation is that we will deliver.</para>
<para>Document made a parliamentary paper.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MOTIONS</title>
        <page.no>9</page.no>
        <type>MOTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Parliamentary Standards</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion on the <inline font-style="italic">Set the </inline><inline font-style="italic">s</inline><inline font-style="italic">tandard</inline> report be referred to the Federation Chamber.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>15</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That order of the day No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That notice No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>15</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6963" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I declare that, unless otherwise ordered, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 is referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration at the adjournment of the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>15</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6967" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>15</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 implements recommendation 1 of the Bell inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, by amending the Ministers of State Act 1952 to provide greater transparency and publicly available information regarding commonwealth executive government positions. It will do this by establishing legislative requirements for the publication of notices detailing the commencement or revocation of appointments to the Federal Executive Council or to administer a department of state or directing a minister of state to hold an office.</para>
<para>The opposition supports this bill. The opposition will always support sensible legislation that is put before this chamber, and it will in this case. Consistent with recommendation 1 of the Bell inquiry, the legislation requires the making of a notifiable instrument as soon as practicable after the Governor-General chooses, summons and swears in or revokes the membership of an executive councillor under section 62 of the Constitution; appoints or revokes the appointment of an officer to administer a department of state under section 64 of the Constitution; and directs that a minister of state hold an office under section 65 of the Constitution or revokes such a direction. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 goes to the very heart of our democracy and is part of the work the Albanese Labor government is doing to restore faith in this institution. Last year, we passed the bill to establish a national anticorruption commission. It is another vital part of the extensive work we are doing to bring integrity back into the government and to this place—something so dreadfully diminished by the actions we've all witnessed of the previous government. That was an election commitment we made, and I've spent hours listening to people in my community in Chisholm tell me how important acting on corruption and restoring faith and trust in government is. It is so important to the people I represent, and it is very important to me personally. I really do—as I hope most of my colleagues do—take the job very seriously here in this place. I don't treat the privilege of being here as a parliamentarian as something that is to be approached like a game. We should not hide from the difficult decisions and conversations we have to make in these jobs, and we should be honest and transparent and accountable to our communities.</para>
<para>While the National Anti-Corruption Commission is one of the ways we're ensuring that this is how the parliament and government function, this bill is another. I, like so many Australians, was completely and utterly appalled by the actions of the member for Cook when it became clear he had appointed himself to several ministries. It was a great shame that there was no meaningful apology to Australians following the revelations made to journalists writing a book, and honestly, we just deserve so much better than the so-called explanation we received as a nation.</para>
<para>I think we have one of the best democratic systems in the world, with compulsory voting and an independent electoral commission, and it should be a great source of pride to Australians that ours was one of the very first nations in the world to enfranchise women to vote. To trash this system, to try to play tricky games with the precious institution of democratic government, is disgraceful. We've seen recently in places such as the United States and Brazil how fragile democracies can be when we do not do everything we can to protect them. In Australia we have ourselves seen that we cannot take anything for granted when it comes to our democracy, and this bill is part of protecting and defending the system of government and governance that we have here. Very importantly, it is about treating Australians—people who vote for us and put us here—with the respect that they deserve.</para>
<para>The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 will implement reforms to provide for greater transparency and accountability at the Commonwealth level of our system of government, and this is a great thing. It will ensure that Australians are able to access information relating to the composition of the Federal Executive Council, those appointed to administer certain departments of state, and the high offices that ministers of state hold. These reforms perform a part of our response to the report of the inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC.</para>
<para>Introducing this bill demonstrates our readiness to act promptly to restore confidence in our federal system of government and to rebuild integrity in public sector institutions, processes and officials. Of course, the genesis for the Bell inquiry stemmed from media reports, where we all found out that the former Prime Minister, the Hon. Scott Morrison MP, had been appointed to administer multiple portfolios during 2020 and 2021: Health; Finance: Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Treasury; and Home Affairs. This was on top of his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I know that so many people were really shocked and appalled to find this out, and I'm really glad we're taking actions to make sure this cannot happen again.</para>
<para>The government referred these matters to the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. It was clear from his advice that the principles of historical government 'are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government'. Following his advice, it was also clear that an appropriate and swift inquiry was needed and that action had to be taken. I'm really glad that we took action. This really should not be about politics. This should be about the system of governance that should be treasured by all of us in this place, and indeed about transparency and accountability to the communities that send us here.</para>
<para>The Westminster traditions of checks and balances need to be honoured. As the Solicitor-General also said, it is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which ministers are responsible for which department. So this really goes to something so fundamental about the way this place operates and about what Australians are entitled to know about who is running the country. It is so significant.</para>
<para>This amendment bill forms one part of our response to Ms Bell's recommendations. Specifically, this bill will require the official secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument, registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable, that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive counsellor to the Federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require such notification on the revocation of any of these positions. The notifiable instrument will include the name of the person, the department of state where appropriate, and the date on which they were sworn, appointed or directed. In the case of revocations, the notifiable instrument is to include the name of the person, the name of the former office and the date that such membership, appointment or direction was revoked. The notifiable instrument may also comprise a copy of an instrument by the Governor-General. I hope we can all agree this is only going to be a very good thing for the governance of this country and the accountability we owe to the people that put us here.</para>
<para>The introduction of this bill shows the government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics, the centrepiece of which is the recent introduction of legislation for a powerful, transparent and independent national anticorruption commission. The measures in this bill will go some way to provide greater integrity and transparency around the process of appointing elected officials to high office, especially to ensure that we have a system of government where there are real checks and balances and where one person cannot gain powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the Australian parliament. I am really pleased and proud to support this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022. Responsible government is the foundation of our system of parliamentary democracy. The principle that ministers are responsible to parliament and that parliament is responsible to the people is part of our great British constitutional heritage. It's one of the features of our parliamentary democracy that distinguishes us from the United States and from many European democracies.</para>
<para>Responsible government is a fundamental feature of Australian constitutional practice. To be sure, responsible government has been weakened in Australia by an increasingly powerful executive which dominates parliament by the means of party disciplines.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Katter</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Dead right, Monique!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr RYAN</name>
    <name.id>297660</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Bob! Responsible government in Australia has been undermined by the progressive defunding and disempowerment of what was once an effective and independent public service. Responsible government in Australia has been constrained by the loss of the concept of ministerial responsibility. Where once ministers lost their jobs for not declaring a Paddington Bear at Customs, we now see ministers evade responsibility for actions which result in the deep distress and suicide of Australians—as demonstrated in the former government's Prime Minister's and multiple ministers' shameful recent testimony to the robodebt royal commission.</para>
<para>But the most startling breach of responsible government occurred in a 14-month period from March 2020 to May 2021, when the member for Cook, acting as the Prime Minister, was secretly appointed to administer five departments of state in addition to that of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. These appointments were not disclosed to the parliament or to the public. The secrecy of these appointments has been widely condemned. That eminent professor of constitutional law Professor Anne Twomey said this lack of transparency is 'indicative of a lack of respect for the institutions of government and of the general public'. The Solicitor-General said that the actions of the former Prime Minister 'fundamentally undermined' the principles of responsible government. In her report on the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments, the Hon. Virginia Bell found that these actions were 'corrosive of trust in parliament'. My Kooyong constituents deeply value our rich British parliamentary heritage, our constitutional conventions and our system of parliamentary democracy. They want their representative to uphold and protect the tenets of responsible and transparent government.</para>
<para>This bill, to ensure greater transparency for executive appointments, shouldn't be necessary. But it will ensure that no future Prime Minister can ride roughshod over the most fundamental principles of responsible government. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Integrity, accountability and transparency: themes identified in the 2022 federal election campaign in my home electorate on the Central Coast, a significant part of my maiden speech to this parliament and themes that underpin my practice, my attitude and my behaviour both in and outside this chamber. A healthy democracy has, at its core, these notions: integrity, accountability, transparency. As your member for Robertson, I see it as the responsibility of every person in this place, in every seat, and in the other place, to ensure that we safeguard and protect it for future generations. This is why, when the opportunity presented itself to speak on this piece of legislation, I saw it as an opportunity to strengthen what we have here: a democracy that is the envy of the world.</para>
<para>The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 will implement reforms to provide for greater transparency, to provide for greater accountability at the Commonwealth level for our system of government. I rise today to speak on a piece of legislation that will provide greater integrity and transparency surrounding the process of appointing elected officials into high office, especially to ensure that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances, and where one person, an individual, cannot again acquire powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian parliament. Access to information is absolutely vital. It is absolutely critical to this process. This bill will ensure that there are checks and balances. This bill will ensure that the Australian people will be able to access information relating to the composition of the Federal Executive Council, those appointed to administer certain departments of state and the high offices that ministers of state hold.</para>
<para>The reforms in this bill form part of a response to the report of the inquiry into the appointment of the former prime minister to administer multiple departments. This inquiry was led by former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC. What this piece of legislation demonstrates to the Australian public is our government's readiness to act promptly to restore peoples confidence in our system of government—confidence that was lost after 10 long years, a decade of Liberal Party rule—and to rebuild integrity in public systems, public sector institutions, processes and officials.</para>
<para>We all know where this started—the people of the Central Coast and around Australia, particularly those in this chamber and in the other place—and we all know why this bill is absolutely vital and absolutely necessary. In August 2022 media reports began detailing that the former prime minister and member for Cook had been appointed to administer multiple portfolios during 2020 and 2021—namely, the Department of Health; the Department of Finance; the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; the Department of the Treasury; and the Department of Home Affairs—on top of his appointment to administer the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The government referred these matters to the Solicitor-General and Dr Stephen Donaghue KC. As was clear from his advice: 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' Following the Solicitor-General's advice, it was also clear that an appropriate and swift inquiry was needed, and action had to be taken. The actions of the former prime minister have been condemned, not just by the Australian public but by multiple former Liberal prime ministers.</para>
<para>And so it was on 26 August 2022 that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP, announced the appointment of former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell AC to lead the inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments. I need to state: the inquiry wasn't about politics. Instead, it was essentially a root cause analysis into why this occurred. It was an analysis into how this occurred. And, more importantly, it was an analysis into who knew about the events that transpired. It is important, it is vital and it is crucial that we have integrity and that we have accountability and transparency in our system of government and the processes within, because our parliamentary democracy relies upon these conventions and relies upon the Westminster traditions of checks and balances. As was made very clear by the Solicitor-General, it is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which ministers are responsible for which departments.</para>
<para>The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 2022 forms one part of the government's response to Ms Bell's recommendations. Specifically, the bill will require the Official Secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable advising that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state, or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require such notification on the revocation of any of these positions. The notifiable instrument will include the name of the person, the department of state where appropriate, and the date on which they were sworn, appointed or directed. In the case of revocations, the notifiable instrument is to include the name of the person, the name of the former officer and the date that such membership, appointment or direction was revoked. The notifiable instrument may also comprise a copy of an instrument issued by the Governor-General.</para>
<para>This legislation highlights the Albanese Labor government's commitment to delivering on an election promise to restore trust and integrity within our federal parliament and within our community. The foundation of this restoration was the recent legislation of a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission. The measures in the bill will go some of the way to providing greater integrity and transparency around the process of appointing elected officials to high office; and especially to ensure that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances, a system of government where one person cannot again garner powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australian people and the Australian parliament. So I say again: integrity, accountability and transparency are vital in this place.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In 50 years as a member of parliament, half a century, you see a lot of changes happen. Sometimes you can't actually grasp what is happening. Late last year I was asked to go down to a senior minister. I won't say what party, but he had been a senior minister off and on in various governments for some 20-odd years and is very highly respected. Before I could sit down in his office, he said: 'Bob, today politicians don't govern. They will not govern. They cannot govern. They don't govern.' I asked, 'When did you come to that conclusion?' He said, 'Three years ago.' I said, 'Well, you're one up on me, my friend, because I came to the same conclusion 3½ months ago. It's not because they're lily-pad lefties. It's not because they're ringbarking righties. It's not because of their other proclivities or ideologies that we see. They don't conform, or, if they conform to any of those, they just cannot make decisions. Let me be very specific.</para>
<para>The honourable Liberal member at the table, the member for Hume, is laughing. He was told to set up an emergency supply of fuel, and he put the emergency supplies in America. In all my time in parliament, I don't think I've felt more humour at a decision than that one.</para>
<para>Laura Tingle wrote a magnificent article—I think the best I've ever read of hers. George Megalogenis did a follow-up, another brilliant article. Laura Tingle said that the Public Service has been politicised. We saw that vividly in Queensland. As a minister, when I took the portfolio, I wanted to sack the head of the department, who I estimated probably had about a hundred First Australian children. You'll say that he must have been a monster. Well, other people and the good Lord can make judgement on whether he was or whether he wasn't. He was to be immediately sacked, but I couldn't sack him. We had a Public Service board, and I could not sack him. It was not quite as simple as that, but that's roughly the way it was. We had a Public Service board that protected him. As Laura Tingle said, the Public Service is now politicised. All the public servants that you have now will be changed with a change of government. When I say 'a change of government'—if Anthony Albanese is re-elected as the Prime Minister of Australia he will change the ministries. You have a new government with new ministers, or new portfolios, and the whole thing changes around.</para>
<para>In Queensland we had a very centralised, powerful government, and everyone is aware of that. The Bjelke-Petersen government was a centralised government—you'd have to go back to the days of Theodore in Queensland, but they were highly centralised. Bjelke-Petersen was a very powerful man, and Sir Leo Hielscher was the senior bureaucrat. No-one could get between that pair. If you were a minister, you did as you were told. A bloke like me—we had a difference of opinion. I felt my blackfella brother-cousins should own their own land and do whatever they wanted to do with it. There was a view that we should look after them and look after that land for them. That is a view that prevails today, of course. They have carbon credits, which is good for them—that's what we told them, that it's good for them. So we decided what's good for them. I think most of them wanted to put cattle on the land, but we decided what was good for them.</para>
<para>They said there is now a politicised Public Service. You might have a bloke who's never had anything do with a portfolio—agriculture or manufacturing, for example—in his entire life. But he'll suddenly be head of a department as an expert in this area, whereas in the Queensland Public Service, almost invariably, if you were an expert in agriculture then you stayed in agriculture. Overlaid on top of what has happened in Australia—this is how it pertains to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister couldn't get anything to happen. He sat there and he could not get anything to happen, and eventually he got frustrated. Malcolm Turnbull told me that he believed in ministerial government and that the minister controlled the operation of their portfolio, not him. That was telling me that it was useless for me to go running off to him, because I had a bit of a balance of power situation. It was useless me running off to him, because every minister would be making decisions in their own portfolios. Well, (a) the ministers didn't make the decisions and (b) he was impotent. The people elected him to govern Australia, and he was telling me he was not governing Australia. When the Prime Minister we're discussing today tried to govern Australia, he wasn't allowed to; the ministers just did not do anything.</para>
<para>Let me be very specific. The then Prime Minister's mother was a Gilmore, and they had 12 to 15 cattle stations throughout my home country, North Queensland's mid-west, or inland North Queensland, if you like. I knew the Gilmore's very well. Dame Mary Gilmore was on the $10 note. She's buried in Cloncurry, in my hometown. So I knew the family extremely well. I knew that this man would absolutely love to develop his homeland. He would love to put a dam in Hughenden and in each of the mid-west towns, and a dam on the massive Flinders River, where they'd use no water out of it at all for irrigation. There are two farms on the Flinders River. It's the sixth biggest river in Australia, with seven million megalitres of water. To put that into perspective, the Murray-Darling has 20-odd million megalitres of water; the Flinders has seven million megalitres of water and two farms. The Murray-Darling has something like 200,000 farms.</para>
<para>He wanted to put a dam at Hughenden. He wanted to put a little tiny dam in a little tiny town, which would take 300,000 megalitres out of a stream of seven million megalitres, and he couldn't get it to happen. I'm not here to denigrate people, but the minister in this place said, 'Oh, yeah, and I had the state government coming at me.' I said, 'Just call tenders; I mean, for heaven's sake, you want 48,000 reports!' We had to put a report in on the economic basis for this proposal. Then when we finished that, we had to do another report on cost-benefit analysis. Then we finished that we had to do a cultural assessment for the First Australians. Then when we finished that, we had to show the social effects on the area. Then we had to do an environmental report. We'd all be dead and gone long before anything happens!</para>
<para>In my day, in the state of Queensland, we decided whether we were going to build a dam or whether we weren't, and if you couldn't make a decision, then you shouldn't have been in parliament. Bjelke-Peterson set up a committee of inquiry. There was another colleague of mine—and we were all laughing in cabinet because we knew what was going to happen. In two months, he was sacked. Bjelke-Peterson quite rightly said, 'If this room is for people who can make a decision, if you can't make a decision and you have to run off and make a report, then get the hell out of this room.' And he ordered him out of the room, and the bloke burst out crying. That gives you some idea of the way you run a government. If you're running a government, you're running a government.</para>
<para>The most important thing I have to say is that the opinion to me of the most experienced person in the history of this place and, I would argue, probably one of the longest-serving cabinet ministers in the history of this place—and obviously I'm not in a political party, so I'm not in his party—is that they don't govern anymore. I used the example of the little tiny dam at Hughenden. There was a little tiny $28 million for a little tiny weir at Charters Towers, which is, again, in Gilmore country. The Prime Minister wanted to see it happen. He gave me $28 million—because that's how much it costs to build a dam—to build a dam. I saw the CEO last week. The local council's running it. He said, 'We've had to do three reports for the state government, and that took the whole $28 million.' It's gone on reports. So we keep spending money on reports. More than half of the cost of building a road now is spent on reports, and less than half of the cost is spent on actually building the road.</para>
<para>Democracy is faulting, and not just in Australia. Eight of the last presidents in America have spent most of their presidencies trying to stay out of jail. It is beyond the realm of possibility that eight people who were president of the United States were all criminals. No matter how cynical you might be about politics, that is not real. But, because they had to spend their time staying out of jail, there was no time to rule America. So we have a democracy that is malfunctioning very badly.</para>
<para>I have a friend who said: 'The mob get it right. In the end, in Australia, the mob get it right.' In this place stood three of the greatest Australians ever: 'Red Ted' Theodore, the creator of the Labor movement in Australia; Ben Chifley; and John Curtin. They all said that in a depression you must spend money. The newspapers ripped them to pieces. Sir Otto Niemeyer from the Bank of England ripped him to pieces. The establishment in Australia ripped them to pieces. Not only did they lose the election; the three of them lost their seats in parliament.</para>
<para>Now, the danger for you people in the big parties in this place is that the mob gets it right in the end. That's your problem. It's a big problem because we people over here got more than one in three votes in the last election. The government got less than one in three votes, and the opposition got less than one in three votes. So the mob are waking up, the same as they did with Curtin, Chifley and Theodore, who were not only returned to parliament—Theodore was too old, but the other two were—but made prime ministers of Australia. Chifley, of course, was the greatest Prime Minister that we've ever had in this country. So the mob will get it right.</para>
<para>Democracy is malfunctioning. China is leaping past the United States, with a 10 or 11 per cent annual growth rate versus maybe a faltering two per cent growth rate in the United States. Thirty or 40 years ago it was a joke to think that a communist country could rival a democracy. Quite frankly, the relationship between Japan and India is so close that you're looking at the greatest power equation on earth. They are democracies, so we have some hope for the future. But in Western democracies it would be hard to point to a single country that is operating successfully.</para>
<para>The three most sophisticated intellectual commentators in this country—and I don't mean to denigrate other people by saying that—Laura Tingle, George Megalogenis and Paul Bongiorno, all said that government today doesn't govern. And here was the most experienced and most highly respected person in this place for 30 years saying exactly the same thing, and being agreed with by one of the two people who have been the longest-serving members of parliament in Australian history: me and Billy Hughes—a terrible person to be associated with; a dreadful person; a dreadful creature. So there's no great kudos in being around a long time, and there's the proof! But you have seen a long period of parliamentary history, and you have seen enormously successful governments.</para>
<para>I was in a government that was fascist. They started throwing people in jail for having demonstrations. The party I belonged to got very, very angry, and the Premier was forced out of his fascism. It was a bad period, but it was a period that was overcome. It was a period in which every year we'd build a giant dam and create a new city in outback Australia! <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Much was made in the wake of the announcement of the Bell inquiry about our government's priorities. Some in TV, the media and papers suggested that we should leave the issue of the former Prime Minister's multiple ministries in the past. Those opposite, in an act of deflection that was as desperate as it was transparent, argued for silence on the matter. When that didn't work, they accused the government of pursuing a politically driven witch-hunt. They dismissed the significance of the former Prime Minister's actions, they dismissed the advice of the Solicitor-General and they dismissed the outcry of the Australian people.</para>
<para>But the right priorities are something that this government and this Prime Minister, unlike those opposite, understand. We know that there is no greater gift than government. It is a precious opportunity bestowed by the Australian people to get things done, to make things fair and to leave this country in a better place than we found it. So we have not wasted a single minute. In our brief time in office the Albanese government has taken meaningful action on the cost of living and on wages growth. We've restored Australia's place in the world. We've got mums and dads back to work by making child care cheaper. And we're creating new, better-paid and more-secure jobs.</para>
<para>As we stand here in this place, we should be reminded that we have a greater obligation to Australians and, indeed, to Australia. But perhaps the greatest priority and responsibility is to protect and defend the institutions, the norms and the conventions that safeguard our democracy, because practically delivering a better life for Australians and standing up for our institutions are not mutually exclusive. It's no false dilemma, as those opposite would have you believe. It is core business. It's what our constituents put us here to do and is precisely what the Albanese government is doing with this legislation.</para>
<para>Like many on my side of the aisle, I'm very fond of former US president Barack Obama. In his final speech as president he spoke about the hope and fragility of democracy. His ode to and defence of our guiding political philosophy was timely and necessary.</para>
<para>Across the world, democracy has been under assault from enemies foreign and domestic. Wannabe strong men have ripped from the same pages of the authoritarian handbook. They've dabbled in the politics of hate and division, demonised and attacked the free press, waged war on the baseline facts which underpin the context of ideas, and undermined the norms and institutions that our democratic system is founded upon. In Ukraine, the attack is less subtle. Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine is intended to snuff out the promise of democracy, so powerful a threat to his authoritarian regime, on Russia's border. In defence of their sovereignty and our shared belief that governments should be chosen by and accountable to their citizens, Ukrainians have fought back, have shed blood and are repelling the aggressors. For that, we and all other democracies owe them a great debt.</para>
<para>We, as Australians, should take pride in the strength of our democracy. Our elections are held without incident, and the transfer of power is done peacefully. Our judiciary is fierce in its independence, and our government is held responsible to this parliament and the people we represent. But we cannot rest on our laurels and we cannot underestimate the fragility of democracy. That's why, when our institutions, our norms and our conventions are challenged, it is our duty to speak up and to act.</para>
<para>It bears repeating how we got to this point and why we are here legislating these changes to the Ministers of State Act. In August of last year it was revealed that the former Prime Minister had appointed himself to administer five additional portfolios. The Prime Minister was also the Treasurer, the finance minister, the home affairs minister, the health minister and the minister for industry, science, energy and resources. He made these appointments in secret. His ministers were not aware, the parliament was not aware and the Australian people were not aware.</para>
<para>Having learnt of the member for Cook's secret ministries, the Albanese government sought advice from the Solicitor-General—as they should. Dr Donaghue's opinion was unequivocal: 'The principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined by the actions of the former government.' It was clear from the Solicitor-General's advice that further action was needed. Australians were owed an explanation as to how this happened, why it happened and who knew about it—not for political pointscoring or retribution but because our democracy is fragile; it's worth protecting, because fundamental to the functioning of our government is transparency in its processes. You cannot have checks and balances in our Westminster system when its ministers are appointed in secret.</para>
<para>As the Solicitor-General makes clear in his advice, it is impossible for the parliament to hold ministers to account for the administration of departments if it does not know which ministers are responsible for which departments. So the government acted swiftly, appointing former High Court Justice the Hon. Virginia Bell to lead an inquiry into the appointment of the former Prime Minister to administer multiple departments. Justice Bell's inquiry concluded that the lack of disclosure in the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government. Once the appointments became known, the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.</para>
<para>This legislation is one part of the Albanese government's response to Justice Bell's inquiry. It will end the possibility of Australians not knowing who runs their government. It will require the official secretary to the Governor-General to publish a notifiable instrument, registered on the Federal Register of Legislation, that the Governor-General has chosen, summoned and sworn an executive councillor to the Federal Executive Council, appointed an officer to administer a department of state, or directed a minister of state to hold an office. It will also require the notification of the revocation of any of these positions.</para>
<para>This legislation is important because it provides a mechanism to ensure that the Australian people always know who their ministers are. It's important because it will enshrine greater transparency and accountability in our system of government. But what is most important is the message it sends from this place that this government will not waiver in restoring the Australian people's trust and confidence in our system of government, our institutions and indeed our Public Service. It shows that we are serious about restoring integrity in our politics—an afterthought for the previous government.</para>
<para>When it was revealed that the member for Cook had sworn himself into five additional ministries in secret, it was as shocking as it was somehow unsurprising. Such an outrageous abuse of power by a prime minister would be unfathomable if it were not the member for Cook. Only he could treat the Australian public with such contempt. Only he could have the hubris and the arrogance to treat our institutions with such disrespect. Only he could stand in the House of Representatives and provide no explanation, no apology to Australians for what he did—even after Justice Bell's inquiry found the former Prime Minister's justification 'not easy to understand and difficult to reconcile with the facts'. Perhaps he did it for more power, or perhaps it was because he thought he could get away with it.</para>
<para>But in May of last year Australians showed that they saw the former Prime Minister for what he was and is. They were tired of his lies, his failures of leadership and his inaction: 'I don't hold a hose,' 'It's not a race,' 'It's not my job.' It summed up a prime minister and a government who did not see the Treasury benches as a gift but as a birthright, a prime minister who abdicated leadership and who was more focused on skirting responsibility and blaming others, a prime minister who could do such a thing as swear himself into five additional ministries in secret.</para>
<para>Australians wanted a prime minister they could trust. They wanted a change from the nastiness of the Morrison era. They wanted integrity back in politics and they wanted a better future for our country. So, from Higgins to Tangney, that's how they voted. You would think, then, that the coalition, those opposite, would consider the implications of that federal election result, that losing 18 seats in the House of Representatives would be cause for some introspection, and that, when it was revealed that the member for Cook had betrayed their liberal ideals and so many of his colleagues in their party room with his decision to appoint himself to their portfolios, perhaps it was time to re-evaluate their relationship with the former Prime Minister. But no—when this House censured the member for Cook, most of those opposite saw fit to shake his hand, offer a pat on the back and condemn the motion passed in this place as political retribution. They attacked the independent Bell inquiry. They dismissed the advice of the Solicitor-General. They ignored three former Liberal prime ministers who condemned the member for Cook's actions. Tony Abbott said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I'm just not going to defend what was done. It is just highly unconventional, highly unorthodox and shouldn't have happened.</para></quote>
<para>Malcolm Turnbull said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This is sinister stuff. This is secret government. This is one of the most appalling things I've ever heard in our federal government. I mean, the idea that a Prime Minister would be sworn in to other ministers secretly is incredible.</para></quote>
<para>They even ignored John Howard, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I don't think he should have done that. I don't think there was any need to do it, and I wouldn't have.</para></quote>
<para>The Dutton opposition have shown that they have learned nothing, and that they will continue to disregard the message the Australian public sent them loud and clear in May and in the months since then.</para>
<para>For me, what is worse is the opposition were given an opportunity to stand up for our Westminster system of government, to affirm support for the institutions, the norms and conventions that safeguard our democracy. Instead of seizing that opportunity, they decided to play partisan politics. They chose to back in a former prime minister that the people in my electorate of Hawke and so many others rightly rejected. Their decision is a great shame.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government understands the fragility of democracy. We know it is something that is precious and needs to be defended when challenged. The former Prime Minister's decision to appoint himself to multiple ministries in secret was indeed a challenge to our system of government, and we have acted swiftly and decisively to respond. It is what Australians expect of all of us. It is our duty as parliamentarians.</para>
<para>This bill shows that the Albanese government is delivering on its promise to restore trust and integrity to federal politics. The measures in this bill will go some way to providing greater integrity and transparency around the process of appointing elected officials to high office. Importantly, this bill strengthens the fundamental principle that we have a system of government where there are checks and balances. This bill will ensure that one person can never again garner extraordinary ministerial powers without adequate and warranted accountability to the Australia people and the Australian parliament. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>22</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6963" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>22</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's with pleasure that I speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 today on behalf of the shadow minister for education. The coalition government, indeed, supports this bill which reintroduces measures introduced by us which lapsed at the election and which are now being reintroduced by this government. Imitation really is the best form of flattery.</para>
<para>My colleague the Hon. Alan Tudge is the previous minister for education. I acknowledge his work on this bill. He led a significant piece of work to review the government's investment in research to drive greater benefits for our economy. This work looked at the incredible research undertaken here in Australia by some of our brightest academic minds and the potential for commercialisation of their ideas. What we discovered was that, whilst we undertake world-leading research and publish more than 100,000 academic papers, we don't really do a lot with that research beyond the initial exploration. We saw incredible potential to take these ideas and make the investment more impactful. We saw that we could do this by translating it into commercial applications to meet some of our greatest challenges while also making a substantial economic reform. This would not only highlight Australia's incredible research but also provide a boost to our productivity, creating jobs and the industries of our future. This translation element was a key component of the coalition's $2.2 billion University Research Commercialisation Package and is the subject of the bill before us today.</para>
<para>Our University Research Commercialisation Package outlined key initiatives to reform Australia's research commercialisation landscape across four key areas. I'll outline them: by placing national priorities at the core of Australian government funded research; by using priority driven schemes to ramp up commercialisation activity; by delivering university research funding reform to strengthen incentives for genuine collaboration with industry; and by investing in people who are skilled in university industry collaboration. We outlined the mechanisms to drive these reforms through five key strategic and targeted investments including our $243 million Trailblazer Universities Program to boost prioritised research and development, and drive commercialisation outcomes with industry partners; a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence ventures program which backs start-up companies and helps create commercial opportunities from Australian research; a $296 million for 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 in new fellowships; the creation of a new IP framework for universities to support greater university industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs; and, of course, the $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called valley of death, as it's known, on the road to commercialisation—the subject of this actual bill.</para>
<para>In relation to the first element of the package, the trailblazer program, the research component was aligned with delivering research that would support our national manufacturing priorities. These important priority areas were those we had identified as areas where Australia has significant comparative advantage and a strategic national interest. The areas at the time were medical products, food and beverage, recycling and clean energy, resources technology and critical minerals processing, defence industry, and space. Space is one of my favourites—I'll just mention Ryan Aerospace and Gilmour Space Technologies on the Gold Coast who have done so much work in this area.</para>
<para>The government ran an expression of interest to determine what potential projects were out there, where there could be partnerships with industry and where these ideas could be supported through to application. This process garnered significant interest from the sector and the types of projects being proposed and undertaken were exceptionally impressive. The proposals were reviewed by a panel that comprised leaders in the research field, industry and business leaders, and departmental executives. We announced the successful trailblazer universities in early 2022, which included Curtin University for their resources technology for critical minerals—a trailblazer to establish our competitive advantage in the critical minerals sector and to look at ways to shield Australia from supply chain disruptions, which was so important during COVID, as was highlighted to our country—and the University of Southern Queensland for a space project dubbed iLAuNCH that will look at automation, novel materials, communications and hypersonics. This project will fill gaps in our space market, including the production of rocket and launch facilities, satellite manufacturing, communication technologies and integrated sensing systems. The University of Queensland was included for a food and beverage project that would support doubling of the value of Australia's food and beverage sector by 2030. The University of New South Wales was included to lead a recycling and clean energy initiative to innovate our technologies from the lab to industry, communities and homes. Deakin University is developing a Recycling and Clean Energy Commercialisation Hub, also known as REACH, that will spearhead our recycling and clean energy advanced-manufacturing ecosystem in Australia. Finally, the University of Adelaide's defence trailblazer, aptly named 'Concept to sovereign capability', is focusing on developing new technologies and defence products. I don't know about anyone else in this chamber, but I think that list of projects is impressive.</para>
<para>These six projects alone, supported by close to $250 million in coalition funding, will create hundreds of partnerships across the higher education sector and, most importantly, with industry. Additionally, they will inject billions of dollars into the economy and create thousands of jobs right across the nation. That is what the funding was intended to do. I'm excited to watch these programs mature and realise all of the ambitions they aim for so as to catapult Australia on to the world stage. It is a very exciting time across the country.</para>
<para>The key element of our University Research Commercialisation Package, as I mentioned earlier, was our $1.6 billion investment in Australia's Economic Accelerator, the subject of the bill before the House today. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to make the appropriate provisions in schedule 1 to deliver this program and provide increased support to our universities to commercialise their world-leading research. This component of our package provides a 10-year investment for a competitive grant funding program. Again, our investment was to be aligned to areas that we identified as national priorities outlined in our Modern Manufacturing Strategy. A strategy that focused on expanding and modernising Australia's sovereign manufacturing capability, securing supply chains and investing in the skills and world-class research needed by our manufacturing businesses. Of course, the coalition does support manufacturing businesses—small businesses and medium businesses—across the country. That is our strength, particularly when in government.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, Labor have scrapped the strategy and are attempting to replace it with their National Reconstruction Fund, which really is just a slush bucket to reward their union mates and fund their election commitments. The claim by Labor that the coalition does not support manufacturing, because we opposed the market intervention of a gas price cap and because we oppose their Reconstruction Fund, is complete and utter rubbish. Manufacturers and other businesses know that the coalition is their friend and the ALP is their enemy. I know we will have more to say on this program in the next bill for debate in the House. However, it's essential that investment in Australia's key sectors is not designed on a political whim, eroding investment decisions and confidence in the sector.</para>
<para>We designed our competitive grant for Australia's Economic Accelerator program around three stage gates. The first gate was the initial proof of concept—the idea and testing stage to see if the project is viable. The second was to support the idea through what, in research terms, is known as the 'valley of death'. This is typically the development phase, where significant investment is required and where the greatest risk of projects not proceeding lies. The final stage was to support the project through to commercial realisation. That is about getting the product through to a stage where it's ready to be sold in the marketplace. At each stage of the process, projects would be evaluated for their probability of success, with fewer projects being funded but those funded receiving larger funding and greater industry contribution. This would ensure we were supporting projects with the greatest likelihood of success. The commercialisation component—effectively stage 3, or the final stage—would be further supported through the $150 million commitment to CSIRO's Main Sequence venture. The Australia's Economic Accelerator program will work to attract projects with high commercialisation potential at the proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale level of commercial readiness.</para>
<para>To support this new grant opportunity and ensure its success, the bill also establishes a governance framework which includes a new advisory board. The board will have up to eight expert representatives from the government, industry, business and research sectors. The advisory board will oversee the program, drawing upon its collective experience to drive the translation and commercialisation of university research. Importantly, the advisory board will review grant applications and make recommendations to the Minister for Education to fund projects in accordance with the university research commercialisation strategy.</para>
<para>The board will also be required to provide an annual report to the Minister for Education for presentation to this parliament. This report will cover the achievements and outcomes of translating and commercialising research. The report will also look at the regulatory, financial and cultural barriers that exist to commercialising our research and will propose opportunities to address those.</para>
<para>The next and final element of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to allow for grants to be made under part 2 and part 3 of the act to support the new industry led study and postgraduate research. This will enable the creation of industry led programs that pave the way for clear and structured career pathways. It will also embed researchers in industry settings, enhancing research commercialisation and translation skills, building research careers within industry and, more importantly, building movement and cohesion between academia and industry. Industry will benefit from the opportunities to host PhD students, bolstering their ability to harness ideas and concepts for innovation, as well as opening pathways to recruit high-calibre graduates. This will be further enhanced by a new suite of fellowships that will recognise and reward academics who collaborate with industry, helping to drive the translation of their research and creating new pathways for their work.</para>
<para>These scholarships provide the foundation for a career in innovation, and that's what we want. Further reforms to fellowship schemes administered by the Australian Research Council will build these career pathways in our universities. It should no longer be the case that a researcher who wishes to pursue the application of their research has to take time out from their academic career to do so. The new innovation fellowships will ensure that time spent working with industry or in a start-up business is part of an academic career, with just as much value and recognition as career pathways focused on teaching and research.</para>
<para>The coalition knows that by investing in research commercialisation we are driving Australia's economic growth and future. The development of new technologies and knowledge improves production processes, reduces costs and creates innovative new products for export. At the time of our announcement of the university research commercialisation package there was widespread sector support across the university sector and throughout industry. The Group of Eight universities was supportive of our measures, saying in February:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The commercialisation of Australia's world class university research is key to the nation's growth and prosperity, meeting the challenges ahead and enhancing the lives of future generations.</para></quote>
<para>Science and Technology Australia said that our policy would 'turbocharge Australia's research commercialisation success'. Universities Australia chair, Professor John Dewar AO, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Additional investment to assist the commercialisation of great ideas, at crucial stages, is very welcome …</para></quote>
<para>The Business Council of Australia said our:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… $2.2 billion package will significantly improve Australia's ability to commercialise our best ideas and innovations, scaling them up to create exciting new industries, new exports and new highly skilled jobs for Australians.</para></quote>
<para>Let me close by thanking everyone involved in our work on research commercialisation, including the expert panel of business and university leaders that the coalition appointed. Those leaders are Professor Michelle Simmons AO, director of the Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology; Dr Alan Finkel AO, who was Australia's Chief Scientist of; and then Dr Cathy Foley AO, Australia's Chief Scientist; Ms Laura Tyler, chief technical officer at BHP; Mr Dig Howitt, CEO and president of Cochlear; Professor Paul Welling CBE, vice-chancellor of the University Of Wollongong; Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, managing director and chief executive officer of Macquarie Group; Professor Deborah Terry AO, vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland; Mr Jeff Connolly, chairman and CEO of Siemens Australia and New Zealand, and Mr Andrew Stevens, chair of Industry Innovation and Science Australia.</para>
<para>Our thanks go also to the universities and their research faculties, with many researchers providing us with much-needed practical examples of how and what we can change to be better. Our thanks go also to the Department of Education, particularly the higher education and research divisions, for all of your support, research and guidance as to the practical applications of our ideas.</para>
<para>Finally—and I won't do this often—I will thank the Labor government and Minister Clare, the Minister for Education, for continuing our significant reforms and investment in this space. This bill, and all of the supporting elements of the coalition's university research commercialisation package, ensures that the government investment into research is targeted and supporting areas of national priority. Our investment supports the country economically and our communities more broadly and provides a return on that investment that creates the jobs for our future generations. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>25</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6960" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>25</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Paid Parental Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. The journey to parenthood isn't always easy, and the transition to life with a new addition in the family can bring with it all types of challenges. The ability for parents to take paid parental leave has been settled since 2011, albeit too rigidly. It has meant that the primary caregiver can take up to 18 weeks paid parental leave, and the secondary caregiver can receive two weeks partner pay. One of the best ways to boost productivity and participation in the workforce is to provide more choice and more support for families. Investment in paid parental leave advances gender equality and opportunities for individuals, regardless of their choice to start a family, which people in my electorate of Calare and across the country are calling out for. That is why I'm supportive of the changes proposed in this bill.</para>
<para>This bill will give more families access to the government paid parental leave payment, thereby providing parents greater flexibility in how they take leave, and it will encourage them to share care to support more gender equality. The bill intends to extend parental leave pay from 18 weeks to 20 weeks, with parents who are single at the time of their claim being able to access the full 20 weeks. This extension is a result of combining the current maximum of 18 weeks of parental leave pay with the current two weeks of pay that is available for partners and other carers. Dad and partner pay, as it has been known, will basically be abolished. The bill removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants and the requirement that the primary claimant of parental leave must be the birth parent, allowing families to decide who will claim first and how they will share the entitlement.</para>
<para>This bill also makes paid parental leave consist only of flexible PPL days, allowing claimants to take the payment in multiple blocks, as small as a day at a time, within two years of the birth or adoption, and it removes the requirement to not return to work in order to be eligible. The bill also introduces a $350,000 family income limit, under which families can be assessed if they do not meet the individual income test. The bill also expands eligibility to allow an eligible father or partner to receive parental leave pay regardless of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements or is serving a newly arrived residents waiting period. I note the government has also promised to introduce further legislation to progressively increase the Paid Parental Leave scheme from July 2024 until it reaches 26 weeks in 2026, a full six months, something I'm also supportive of.</para>
<para>Despite the make-up of families rapidly evolving, women are still much more likely than men to be primary caregivers. In 2021, women took 88 per cent of primary parental leave, and nine per cent of Australian businesses still offered parental leave to women only. In Australia, 60 per cent of employers offer paid parental leave in some form, but half the organisations in male dominated industries don't offer any form of paid primary carer leave. According to KPMG, the division of labour within a household is responsible for 39 per cent of the full-time pay gap between Australian men and women; it's why an effective paid parental leave scheme is critical to improving economic and social equality. Encouraging more equitable care of a child between parents or additional assistance for a single parent is progress that needs to be made.</para>
<para>According to Danielle Wood and Owain Emslie of the Grattan Institute, this initiative should increase GDP by $900 million a year due to increased workforce participation by mothers, and this is good news. At a time when employers are screaming out for new employees, providing primary caregivers the option to return to work sooner and in a more flexible manner is a win for employers and employees alike, and I therefore commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAE</name>
    <name.id>300122</name.id>
    <electorate>Hawke</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Paid parental leave reform is good for families. It looks after new mums, dads and bubs. The Albanese government knows that it's critical for the health and wellbeing of newborns and their parents, and we know that expanding and investing in paid parental leave is good for our economy.</para>
<para>The reforms set out in the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 are all about this government's commitment to improve the lives of working people, especially new mothers. It will encourage parents to share more of the caring responsibilities and make sure that the necessary support is there during one of the most challenging and exciting times of anyone's life. I know for myself all too well the joy, the terror and the utter exhaustion that you feel while juggling work and caring for little ones. I've been fortunate enough to have been in workplaces with generous provisions for parental leave, but I know that not everyone is in the same position. For each of my three children, the ability for me to take leave to be there for their first months has made a monumental difference. It's a privilege that should be enjoyed by all new parents.</para>
<para>This is about choice and flexibility. More people should be able to make the decision that I and so many others can, to enjoy their time raising a new family, and we should make sure that they're fully supported to do so. The decision to have a family is a big one, and we don't want families to have to worry about caring for a newborn while managing the day to day of keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. For too long, parenting has been undervalued and deprioritised in policymaking, but this government knows that it is one of the most fulfilling things that you can do, and these changes recognise that.</para>
<para>This bill to expand and modernise the Paid Parental Leave scheme is a significant reform, driven in large part by unions, who have recognised the need to maximise women's workforce participation; but also for employers, who want to make sure that their workplace is as supportive and accommodating as possible. This sort of investment in our paid parental leave system is good for business, good for productivity and good for the Australian economy. We heard loud and clear at the Jobs and Skills Summit that something needed to be done to ensure greater gender equality, and that that equality was at the heart of future economic reforms.</para>
<para>Importantly, we're delivering on cost-of-living relief for new families with this expanded scheme, something that has been front and centre for this government. In the October budget we revealed this as part of a broader $7.5 billion five-point plan to deliver targeted cost-of-living relief for households while not adding to inflation. This plan builds on our commitment to Australians that we will take action on cost-of-living pressures that are impacting their households and their families.</para>
<para>The plan includes delivering $4.7 billion over four years to deliver cheaper child care for more than 1.2 million families, including almost 7,000 families in my electorate of Hawke alone. We'll also progressively expand paid parental leave to six months by 2026. This is a massive game changer for all working families. By expanding paid parental leave, alongside our investment in cheaper medicines, through reducing the PBS maximum general co-payment to 30 bucks a script, we're lending a hand to those who need it most. And we're delivering more affordable housing, including having a new national housing accord to build affordable and well-located homes for Australians who are trying to have a go. Finally, we'll be getting wages moving again, including supporting the increase to the minimum wage, supporting a wage rise for aged-care workers, fixing the bargaining system and investing in the capabilities of our people and the capacity of our economy, because it's the right thing to do.</para>
<para>After a wasted decade, we're finally building a stronger and more resilient economy and delivering cost-of-living relief for Australian families. These sustainable and targeted reforms will help our economy to bounce back by driving productivity, while making sure parents can make the most of the exciting time that building a family brings. It's important that our businesses and places of employment are supportive places for parents to return to. They need to feel and they need to know that they're being backed in during the pregnancy or adoption and also while they're on leave.</para>
<para>Around 181,000 Australian families will benefit from the changes outlined in this bill, including around 4,300 parents who will be eligible for paid parental leave for the first time under the scheme. This includes the many families that make up my electorate of Hawke, which is filled with new mums and dads and host to a booming population. We know all too well the balancing act that working families face every single day. Hawke is home to a vibrant, multicultural community with so much to be proud of. The city of Melton is one of the fastest growing areas in Australia, with more than 50 babies born every week, exemplifying why it's so important that we work together to ensure that every child's health and wellbeing is central to what we do. The ABS's population-change data shows that the Rockbank and Mount Cottrell area in my electorate of Hawke has Victoria's second-highest growth rate, exploding in population by 540 per cent. By 2051 the city of Melton is projected to be larger than the current population of Canberra. Our fast-growing suburbs will only continue to boom. It's clear that so many families in my electorate are trying to juggle it all while still giving their kids the best start in life. That's why these changes to the scheme are so timely and urgently needed for communities like ours.</para>
<para>When this scheme was first introduced by the Rudd government in 2011 it lifted a huge burden off the backs of hardworking families and created new ways for families to make sure they were able to provide for their kids, while centralising the care and wellbeing of new parents and babies in policymaking. Prior to the Rudd government's scheme being introduced just 50 per cent of working women had access to employer-funded paid parental leave. This grew to around 95 per cent of working women having access to some form of paid leave in the years immediately after the scheme was introduced. And it laid the foundation for more families to make choices that they wouldn't have had before, particularly new mums.</para>
<para>We've still got a way to go. As we know, currently the primary caregiver, usually the mother, is entitled to 18 weeks of pay at the national minimum wage, with dad and partner pay separately provided with two weeks leave. The scheme does not currently do enough to encourage dads to take it up. We know that too often this places the burden of care on women alone. In 2021, almost 170,000 people received parental leave pay and almost 90,000 people received dad and partner pay. In too many cases, the primary care role is left to new mums during what can be an extremely isolating and challenging time. This government will change the scheme to make it easier for new dads to take up paid parental leave. We'll combine the two payments and change eligibility requirements so that new dads aren't excluded from the scheme if their partner makes over the $151,350 income test. By doing this, we're making it easier to raise a family, while boosting women's economic participation and improving gender equality. The reforms that this bill will bring in send a strong message that parenting is an equal partnership. We recognise the role of men as carers too, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and across our communities This is particularly consequential in our electorate of Hawke, where the workforce participation rate for women aged 25 to 54 years is around three per cent lower than the rate recorded nationally.</para>
<para>The ACTU welcomes this as a long overdue step forward, pointing to the fact that the unfair burden of care placed on new mothers contributes to women's earnings falling by 55 per cent, on average, in the first five years of parenthood. We will change the income test to a combined $350,000 between both partners, meaning families are no longer excluded if the mother exceeds the individual income test but the father doesn't, as is currently the case under the scheme. Changes will mean fathers and partners can receive payments under the scheme at the same time as they receive employer-funded leave, incentivising more dads to take on a caring role in those early days. The government has been very clear that our Paid Parental Leave scheme is designed to complement employer-paid workplace leave schemes, not to replace them.</para>
<para>Importantly, this bill introduces amendments that would mean that parents can take their paid parental leave in multiple blocks, in their own time, as suits their families—helping them to ease back into work, as little as a day at a time, within two years of the birth or adoption of their child. This flexibility will support parents to return to work in the way that they see fit, and they won't have to worry about losing their paid parental leave entitlements if they take it in their own time, on their own terms, according to the needs of their families. But there is still cultural change that needs to take place in workplaces before we can truly see all the benefits. Employer-provided paid parental leave is more common in industries dominated by women. Around 50 per cent of businesses in industries dominated by men offer parental leave, compared to 75 per cent of those in female dominated industries. Employer-funded leave needs to be an important part of the offering available to new parents, and it's important that the scheme is complemented by employers to make sure that parents can reap the full benefits and stay connected to work and that our economy can enjoy the dividend.</para>
<para>Part of this cultural change will be enacted through this bill introducing an easier claiming process, which will allow either parent to take leave first, removing the assumptions about mothers and fathers being primary and secondary carers. We know that when fathers are more involved, and take on more responsibility in that caring role, the care continues throughout a child's development, with significant physical, mental and social benefits for the mum, the dad and the kids. Importantly, these reforms will extend the full 20 weeks paid leave to single parents as well. These outcomes are going to be essential going forward as we continue to build on the paid parental leave offering. The current scheme will be changed in six key ways from 1 July 2023, including by combining the two separate payments into a combined 20-week scheme to be shared by both parents; maintaining time for each parent to facilitate both parents to take paid parental leave after a birth or adoption; redefining and removing the notion of primary and secondary carers as being the role of a mother and father respectively, which does not take into account the unique and changing circumstances of modern Australian families; expanding access for thousands of new families with a $350,000 family income test, meaning people can receive paid parental leave if they do not meet the current individual income test; increasing flexibility by giving new parents more choice in how they decide to take paid parental leave; and ensuring eligible fathers and partners are able to access the scheme regardless of whether the mother or birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements.</para>
<para>But we won't stop here. In the October budget we committed to a half-a-billion-dollar investment to expand the scheme to provide six months of paid parental leave at the national minimum wage by 2026. As part of that we will be progressively increasing the scheme by six weeks until it reaches the full 26, bringing us up to six months of paid parental leave.</para>
<para>The prioritisation of this issue in our first year of government speaks to our commitment to working families, especially in the context of our changes to make child care more affordable and accessible for everyday families. Our plan for cheaper child care means 96 per cent of families will be better off—that's 1.26 million families across the country—and not a single one will be worse off under our plan.</para>
<para>The cost of early learning is a major cost-of-living issue for working families. Under the previous government, almost 73,000 families were locked out of the childcare system because it was simply unaffordable. We're getting on with fixing the cost of child care, and we're fixing paid parental leave. This is about fundamental economic reform, building back after 10 years of inaction and delivering a considerable economic boost while supporting working families in our community.</para>
<para>We're delivering a wholesale reform of the way we deal with paid parental leave in this country so that it's a fairer, more robust system that aligns more closely with the views and expectations of modern Australia. I am very proud to be part of a government that has spent every day working on behalf of Australian families, delivering significant reforms to improve the lives of families and communities right across our country. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WATSON-BROWN</name>
    <name.id>300127</name.id>
    <electorate>Ryan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. Many working parents in Ryan have shared with me the challenges around just that: being parents who need to work. Appropriate, fit-for-purpose paid parental leave is absolutely central to functioning and thriving families, to communities and to our economy.</para>
<para>This morning I attended the International Women's Day breakfast here in Parliament House. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, amongst others, spoke about uplifting women's lives and equality. They were certainly talking the talk. A great way to walk the walk would be to radically improve paid parental leave, thereby radically improving women's lives. We know that making paid parental leave available for both parents can foster a more equal division of caring responsibilities and set up good habits for life. We also know that the workforce participation of mothers is considerably higher in countries with both a strong paid parental leave scheme and available, affordable child care.</para>
<para>Despite these clear benefits, shamefully, Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme is currently ranked second-worst in the developed world. With 18 weeks of leave, it falls well behind international best practice of 52 weeks, with structured use-it-or-lose-it provisions and higher rates of pay in those other schemes. As one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, we should be able to give working carers and their children the quality time together that they need. The work and care inquiry initiated by my great Senate colleague Barbara Pocock has heard a wealth of evidence about the need for a strong parental leave scheme, and we Greens will continue to push to make that a reality.</para>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 is a welcome recognition of the need for reform in the way we design parental leave, to address maternal and child health, to encourage shared care and to address the contribution of our current parental leave policies to the persistent and problematic gender pay gap. But much more needs to be done, much faster than the government's current timetable. The government could immediately move to 26 weeks rather than making families wait another three years for that, and they should commit to finding a pathway to 52 weeks of paid parental leave by 2030, as recommended by many stakeholders, including the ACTU.</para>
<para>In Australia, despite measures allowing fathers to take parental leave, only one in 20 fathers take parental leave beyond the two weeks of dad and partner pay leave. We know that use-it-or-lose-it provisions can be part of the solution. There are great precedents in other countries like Finland and Norway, along with Japan, Canada and other countries that have had these policies in place for some time. What they have reported is a marked increase in shared care arrangements and reduced stigma around shared care and flexible work arrangements. Isn't this what we also need in Australia? In fact, when Canada introduced additional paid parental leave on a 'use it or lose it' basis, the percentage of partners taking leave in the first year doubled. We know it works. It's better for all parents and children.</para>
<para>I welcome the government's recognition of 'use it or lose it' in encouraging shared care. I also acknowledge the great work being done by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce to review effective 'use it or lose it' periods and urge the government to implement their recommendations when they are released.</para>
<para>This change must be supported by campaigns to educate families about the great benefits of shared care and to encourage employers to facilitate both parents taking leave and returning to the workplace while juggling caring responsibilities. This will be absolutely transformative. We urgently need to make that cultural shift that removes the stigma and normalises both parents being equally involved in caring for young children.</para>
<para>Under the bill, paid parental leave will continue to be a government funded scheme, paid at the minimum wage, as the previous speaker just mentioned, but that's a wage that we know is woefully inadequate. The Greens have consistently said that it must be lifted for everyone. I also note that the ACTU and the Australian Human Rights Commission, and others who submitted to the bill inquiry, strongly supported increasing the rate of paid parental leave to replacement level, instead of just the minimum wage. This is consistent with the calls of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women.</para>
<para>Why is this so important? Parents taking leave to care for children marks a really significant break in their career and their earning capacity, particularly for women who take leave and often return to work at reduced hours and defer promotions. This is an issue that has often been raised with me, and it resonates very strongly for me and, I'm sure, most other people who've been working parents. I believe that replacement wages would ensure that parents are not financially punished for taking time to care for their children. Importantly, providing replacement wages also helps to encourage shared care, by reducing the income lost by parents taking leave.</para>
<para>We Greens are going to continue to call for reforms that incentivise parents to take their parental leave entitlements, including increasing the payment rates and encouraging employers to top up any government paid leave. The Greens have long called for superannuation to be paid during parental leave. We know that the gap in super balances between men and women at retirement age is really huge. Research suggests it's as much as 30 per cent. This makes things much tougher for older women, who are also known to be one of the most at-risk groups for homelessness. Unions, business groups, the Greens and even the former government's Retirement Income Review all agree that adding super to paid parental leave is a no-brainer, and yet it's not a part of this bill.</para>
<para>The Greens will also continue to push the government to ensure that workers can access reasonable flexibility to work from home, change their hours, share roles or make other arrangements to allow them to balance care and work. Other countries have achieved this. So should we.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I know there are people who think that paid parental leave only affects mums of a certain age, but, of course, the impacts of not being able to access leave really have a myriad of consequences across families—for mums and dads, for immediate family, for extended family and, importantly, for employers.</para>
<para>I was in a particular group, in the early 1990s, where I wasn't entitled to a day of what we then called maternity leave. I had been working out of the country for several years, self-employed as a freelance journalist for much of it, or with a UK employer, and none of my entitlements came home with me. On arriving home, pregnant, I realised that I was going to have to work through not just the pregnancy but those first few months. My husband and I did not have an economic choice about that. I'm not a believer in 'I managed it so everyone else should,' although, sadly, I have heard women say, 'We did without it, and I don't know why it's such a big deal now,' but it is. You only have to remember the struggles that you had as a young mum, juggling work deadlines while breastfeeding a baby, having a sick child and knowing that if you're not working there's not going to be anyone to pay the mortgage. Those sorts of pressures on young families are extraordinary, and it is really significant that, in the last few years, since the Gillard days, there has been a recognition that it is an essential part of a healthy society that we have a good paid parental leave program. I'm very proud that this government sees it as a priority, as we do so many of those financial supports that mean women can not only close the gender gap in their earnings but really thrive in an environment where they have freedom to make some choices about how they work and when they work. Our legislation around child care and reducing the costs of early childhood education is another example of that.</para>
<para>I'm delighted to be able to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I'm very much looking forward to it becoming a reality, as, I must say, are my children, who are in their late 20s and early 30s. Their generation is looking to us to help them find a way to make their next steps in the world. One of the things that I noticed at the Jobs and Skills Summit was how high a priority improvements to paid parental leave were. These messages were not necessarily coming from people representing the mums and the dads; they were coming from businesses and the business sector because, in fact, such improvements turn out to be a microeconomic reform. We listened to the variety of proposals that were raised, and we would love to do everything, but we've started with the priorities. This is the most significant step to improving the scheme since it was established by Labor in 2011.</para>
<para>The bill that we're debating today reflects our commitment to improve the lives of working families and advance women's economic equality. That's why I'm very proud that I'm speaking today as we mark International Women's Day in parliament, which we usually do a few weeks before International Women's Day takes place on 8 March. It is a reminder of how poorly we do in Australia. In fact, this morning, we were reminded that, in the area of gender equality, Australia doesn't sit in the top 5 or the top 10 on the global list of countries that are doing a really good job. We don't even sit in the top 20, nor the top 30. We are No. 43 on that list. In the top 10, you've got a whole lot of countries you'd expect—a bunch of Scandinavian countries and New Zealand—but you've also got Rwanda and Nicaragua. We really should be up there at the top because we're an economy and a country that can make these improvements. This bill will help. Around 181,000 families will benefit directly from the changes in the bill, including around 4,300 people who would have been ineligible under the current scheme without the changes but will now gain access.</para>
<para>What we're really doing is modernising paid parental leave so that it reflects the community and families that we have today. The needs of our families and the community have changed since paid parental leave was first established over a decade ago. These changes will come in from 1 July, which is why we're here now, with some urgency, debating this—so that it can be put in place. It lays the foundations for reform that we want to see by expanding the paid parental leave program to 26 weeks by 2026. The current scheme doesn't do enough to provide access for fathers and partners. It limits the flexibility around how families choose to take their leave and how they choose to transition back to work. One of the current features of the scheme is that the eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. It is worth noting that between 2010 and 2017 the number of women with taxable incomes of more than $150,000 has more than doubled. This bill fixes the issues that limit their access in the current scheme. It fixes all those issues, in fact, and it gives families more access to the government payment. It gives parents greater flexibility, and it encourages parents to share care and to improve gender equality. So, while in a very narrow context this is about making it easier for families, the difference it can make in terms of promoting gender equality is really key, which is why that is named in the bill as its feature—for families and for gender equality.</para>
<para>Let me run through the key points. There are six key changes. From 1 July 2023 the two existing payments will be combined into a single 20-week scheme. We're reserving a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off work after a birth or an adoption. We're making it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of 'primary' and 'secondary' carer. We're expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test. We're increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days. And we're allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. These are changes that will allow many families to breathe a sigh of relief and to know that there's support for them when they really need it most in those early weeks and months.</para>
<para>I want to speak a bit about the use of the leave by fathers and partners in the form of dad and partner pay. This really is a very significant change. One thing it does is preserve the existing feature by reserving two weeks of the payment for each parent. So, there is a preservation of those portions. incorporating this reserved portion under a single scheme rather than a standalone payment means we're making the sharing of parental leave between parents a central part of it—a real partnership. And I think we've seen from so many new mums and dads in this chamber exactly how modern families work. In some ways, this bill is catching up with what is already happening, where it is financially possible to do it.</para>
<para>The bill supports both parents to take leave beyond the two-week reserved period. Really importantly, single parents will be eligible for the full 20 weeks. Another significant benefit of the move to a single 20-week scheme is that it allows fathers and partners to receive the government payment at the same time as their employer-paid leave. That's currently available to mothers, but it hasn't been available to partners and fathers. Fixing this inequality actually removes the financial disincentive for fathers and partners to access the scheme to take time off work to care for a child. What it really does, by allowing both parents to claim the government payment alongside their employer-paid leave, is to make it easier for them to maintain their income while caring for their child, and we hope this will result in more partners and dads taking leave. We are really mindful of the financial pressures people are under, and support for that is built into this legislation.</para>
<para>We know that when both parents are not supported to take time off work to care for their babies a couple of things happen. Usually the mum works less or leaves the workforce altogether to take on caring responsibility, while often the dad or other partner remains in full-time work. That pattern isn't for just the first few months. That pattern persists for years and years after the child's birth, and it is a key driver of gender gaps in workforce participation and therefore in earnings. So, this bill works to address those really fundamental issues.</para>
<para>The government supports dads and non-birth parents sharing the load of caring responsibilities because we know that, when they do, it benefits everyone. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, it establishes patterns of care that continue throughout a child's life. I was very fortunate to have had a husband who worked shifts when we had young kids, so there was a lot of sharing. But not every family is in that situation. My husband would never miss the joys of making school lunches for his children frequently, regularly, often, because some of those small things are when the real quality time happens, not to mention the skills that you learn in getting kids off to school and negotiating. I think it works both ways. But a whole lot of families just don't have that opportunity. Providing this access and allowing dads and non-birth partners to be involved right from the start will start to change the patterns that emerge in years to come.</para>
<para>The other way we do that is by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers and allowing all eligible parents to claim the payment. If you haven't made this claim, this is probably news. Currently, mothers must make a successful claim for their parental leave pay and then transfer the payment to their partner if they want to share some of it. That's a complex and administratively burdensome process. It makes it difficult for fathers to take leave, even when it's in the best interests of their families. That's why, in 2021-22, less than one per cent of mothers transferred some of their payment to fathers or partners. The new simpler claims process will allow eligible fathers to qualify if the mother or birth parent doesn't meet the income test or residency requirements, but they will still get it. So there are a whole lot of things that are going to shift this to a more equitable process.</para>
<para>I also want to note that there is a change in the way it's done. The shift to a gender-neutral claiming process is important because it's more inclusive and recognises the diversity of Australian families. I have spoken briefly about the fact that this lifts the threshold for families. It introduces an income limit for a family of $350,000. But it changes the current limit for individuals, because we found women being excluded from it. A combined limit of 350,000 will bring in a whole lot more families. Parents, including single parents, will be eligible for it if they meet either the individual income or the family income test. Again, it's a much fairer system.</para>
<para>I want to congratulate the ministers who've worked on this. There are always many hands. It reflects the make-up of our caucus, where we have many young members, men and women, who have young children and shows that we are in touch with what is happening in our communities. This is something that, on the face of it, a family might say, 'This is great for us,' but we know that this is great for the broader society and terrific for our economy.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak in support of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. I welcome this legislation because it will make a difference both economically and culturally to this country. It will benefit women, it will benefit families and it will benefit parents.</para>
<para>Australia has a wonderful egalitarian culture, but parenthood is one area where we are not as egalitarian as we think we should be. There is a default view in our community that the primary carer of a child is a woman. Our current parental leave standards and what is being sought to change in this legislation will drive that through.</para>
<para>I remember when my sister had her first child. Probably unusually for many women, she was the primary breadwinner. She had her own business and really needed to get back to work pretty quickly. But to enable her partner to take on primary care responsibilities and be supported by the government, she effectively had to say that she was no longer the primary carer. As a woman, I remember her saying, it made her feel like she was an inadequate mother because she wasn't doing what was expected of her because parental leave was about maternity leave, not proper parental leave. I welcome, from this point of view, this idea that parental leave is a shared responsibility of parents. This is the huge change that, culturally, we need to make.</para>
<para>Secondly, I think of this in terms of the economic lens for women. Today we heard from the United Nations group for women about how Australia lags the economic development and economic empowerment of women. We're No. 43 in the world. In the Prime Minister's words, economywide we are a top-20 country but in empowerment of women we are No. 43 in the world. I think a lot of that comes back to the way we still have a very gendered view of women's place in the workforce, and that is really driven by women's place in the home.</para>
<para>Our default view in this country is that women are the primary carers. The opportunity for the paid parental leave bill is to change this. It's this default view that is holding us back. It's holding back children and it holds back this country. Recently, Treasury released some research showing women's earnings have been reduced by an average of 55 per cent in the first five years of parenthood, which they call the motherhood penalty. This penalty is a result of lower participation in paid work, reduced working hours and a reduced working hourly wage. It doesn't just happen where the father is the breadwinner; even for women who are the primary earner, the motherhood penalty is large. When you look at female economic empowerment, and you look at the statistics, you see that women are more educated than ever and are more educated than young men. But, from the early 20s onwards, female economic empowerment and female economic participation drops off, and it is crucially to do with our role in child care and looking after our children. This is the reason I support this legislation.</para>
<para>I will quickly go to what the bill does. The bill combines paid parental leave with dad and partner pay into one 20-week scheme. You can see from dad and partner pay exactly how gendered that paid parental leave has been to date—this reinforcement that it is the dad who's the secondary parent and it's the mum who is meant to look after things. Two weeks will be reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis. This is what the current system is. This ensures both parents have a role.</para>
<para>The bill also ensures the leave can be taken flexibly within two years and raises the income threshold so that more people will participate in this. It removes those claimant categories—primary, secondary, tertiary and birth parent requirements—and will be effective from 1 July this year. I believe from the statistics it's going to help 180,000 families each year, which is absolutely crucial, and it's going to be scaled up to up to a full six months by 2026.</para>
<para>I am supporting this bill on the basis of enabling female workforce participation. Women want to contribute economically but we need to make change and we need to make change in our homes as well as our workplaces. This bill has the right opportunity to change our cultural norms that the work of the family is the responsibility of the women. At the same time this isn't just good for female economic participation; this is good for dads and kids as well. There is strong evidence to show that if second parents, which are typically dads, are more involved in raising their children from early ages, this engagement persists. This is good for parental mental health and also good for childhood development. It's absolutely crucial this is seen not just from an economic point of view but also from a social point of view. It will also, I hope, encourage more people to have children, which is also really important when we look at our long-term economic performance.</para>
<para>I very much rise in support of these changes, but I would like the government to pick up the pace. It's absolutely crucial we cement in culture this change that says parenting is a joint responsibility of the parents, not just of the mother. So I would like to see the 'use it or lose it' part expanded to six weeks so that there are six weeks that are a 'use it or lose it' component for each parent, and the remaining weeks are then on a shared basis. The reason I say this is that we already have two weeks of second-parent—typically dad—parental pay, but there isn't as much take-up of this leave as you would hope, and if people aren't taking up the leave it's not going to make a difference.</para>
<para>Sure, two weeks is helpful, but it doesn't actually cement the core responsibility, which is that raising children is the responsibility of both parents. I think that six weeks of paid parental leave is an amount that really creates enough time for a parent to have sole responsibility of their child, to really bond with their child and to really take responsibility for the child. It will build those habits so that it's not just two weeks—almost like holiday looking after the kids—but it's actually six weeks of taking that care, because I think that is going to be most important in driving cultural change.</para>
<para>This would make a greater difference, I think, in terms of the long-term impact of this change not only on female economic empowerment but also on the mental health of second parents and on childhood development. Ultimately, I and many in the community would like to see Australia move to 12 months of paid parental leave, but at six weeks, with that parental leave to be shared equally between parents, if we can equally share parental leave between parents and set those cultural norms from the start that raising children is joint work, we will truly make a difference to the economic empowerment of women.</para>
<para>I'm standing in support of this bill because women in Wentworth, where I'm from, want to be economically empowered. They want great jobs and they want to have wonderful families. They want to do both, and they believe that they should be able to do both, so we need to change the economics and we need to change the culture, because this is not just about the difference for women; it's about the difference for second parents—typically men—and also for children so we can improve mental health, we can improve childhood development and we can improve the economic empowerment of women.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Paid parental leave is a proud Labor achievement. It speaks to our values and our determination to build a better future for Australians and Australian families. It speaks to our values of fairness and it speaks to our values of opportunity not just for those who work but also for new children, when they come into the world, to spend time with both their parents in those incredibly challenging but important first weeks and months of their lives.</para>
<para>It was 50 years ago this year that we saw the very first steps towards implementing into Australia's laws what was then called maternity leave. That was legislation from the Whitlam government in 1973 to enact 12 weeks of paid maternity leave for women who worked in the Australian Public Service. It was a welcome reform, but it was amazing that we didn't make much progress for many, many decades after that. I also note that that legislation, quite unheard of for the time, did also include one week of legislated leave for male employees.</para>
<para>The next big investment from the Commonwealth, when it came to ensuring support for parents in those early years, was the massive investment from Paul Keating and the Keating government in early childhood care centres across this country. It was the first time that the Commonwealth had really stepped into that space. It's a legacy which we continue today, with our other reforms ensuring we will have cheaper child care from 1 July this year. This is something that, again, is well overdue.</para>
<para>Then, on 10 May 2009, Mother's Day, we had the announcement from the Rudd government that the Commonwealth would support a massive economic reform of paid parental leave—a universal scheme. We had seen so many schemes that had existed for people who had bargained for them in their enterprise agreements or in particular sectors, such as the public sector, but what Australia lacked and what our economy needed was a universal scheme, and I note that the origins of that scheme came from a reference given by a Labor government to the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission said we needed a universal scheme because it was in our national economic interest. That is what this legislation is about, our national economic interest. It will deliver a seismic shift for families who want to spend time with their children and have the economic security that they deserve in the early months of a child's life.</para>
<para>I reflect on the purpose of the legislation we're amending in the comments made by then-minister Jenny Macklin in introducing that bill, which so succinctly speak to all of the benefits delivered when we invest in paid parental leave. Then-minister Macklin said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Paid parental leave will give babies the best start in life. It means one parent has the financial security to take time off work to care for their baby at home during the vital early months of their baby's life. It will give mothers time to recover from birth and bond with their baby.</para></quote>
<para>After that incredibly successful piece of legislation that has helped thousands of families in my electorate, and probably almost a million families across Australia, we're taking the next step, the step towards increasing that to 26 weeks, six whole months, and providing more opportunities for families to share the leave to make sure that both parents, or both carers, have the opportunity to manage both their work responsibilities and their return to work and their exciting new responsibilities as the parent of a new bub.</para>
<para>There were 2,102 zero- to one-year-olds in the Perth electorate on census night—that is, 2,102 families juggling with the challenge of how you bring in and give a child the best start in life while making sure that you are economically secure. I am so fortunate to have been one of those families, with my wife, Jess, who have benefited from the scheme that Minister Macklin, prime ministers Rudd and Gillard and this parliament brought into being.</para>
<para>Let's talk about what this bill does to give more families access to the sorts of support they need. Firstly, it combines the payments into a single 20-week scheme. That is the first step. That is what we're going to do from 1 July this year. We will reserve two weeks of that for each parent to make sure that each parent has time with their child. We're going to simplify claims and processing by removing the categories of primary and secondary carer so parents have more flexibility in accessing the payments. We will expand access to the scheme by introducing the $350,000 income test. It's important to note that single parents will be able to access the full $350,000 income test, rather than being restricted to a $156,647 limit, because we know the challenges for single parents when they have a new bub in their life. If we can do a bit more to help them, we should, and that is exactly what we're doing. It will also allow eligible fathers and partners to access the payment, irrespective of whether the mother or birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements, so supporting more families to spend time with their children. As is the case with the current scheme, this sits on top of the current employer schemes to ensure that the industrial entitlements people have bargained for over many years are preserved.</para>
<para>The first time I took paid parental leave was in 2017. I was not a member of this place at this time. I was the state secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Labor Party, a political party that might not be close to your heart, Deputy Speaker Goodenough, but is still a very important part of the democratic institutions of Western Australia. I give thanks for that experience. When we knew a bub was on the way, I had a chat with the then party president, Carolyn Smith, and the Premier at the time, Mark McGowan, who had recently been elected, to say, 'I'm going to take 2½ months off at the end of the year because we've got a little bub on the way.' It was an incredible time, being able to spend that time with Jess and our new baby boy, Leo, in the heart of the Perth electorate I probably saw more of what would then become my electorate in those three months than I have at any other time because I was able to just spend it enjoying the wonders of being out and about with a new baby. One of the first events that we took Leo to while I was on paid parental leave was the celebration of Australians voting for marriage equality. It was pretty special taking Leo to that. I also had the joy of taking him—standing right up the back with his little headphones on—to a Paul McCartney concert during that time.</para>
<para>When our second child was due to arrive, I was very fortunate to be a member of this place, and I think we've seen time and time again that we are very fortunate that members are afforded leave with their families when children come along, and I think it's a credit to leaders of all parties in this place that that is accommodated. I will talk about my experience. Firstly, the then Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, was very supportive. Our bub Ruby was born during COVID in 2020 and that came with some particular challenges around travel and other things, and I really do appreciate the support of the leader of my party in accommodating all of those needs. I remember, towards the end of my three months of leave that I had taken from being here in the parliament, speaking to the Leader of the Opposition and saying, 'Look, I feel like I could come back.' It was February and I had that big sense of FOMO. I'm so grateful for the leadership he provided in saying: 'No, no, no. You don't need to rush back here. Parliament will still be here in March. Stick to your schedule.' That's exactly what I did, and it was a wonderful piece of advice.</para>
<para>I think about the challenges that we all have in this place when our staff, very fortunately, add new children to their lives. Last year, the Perth electorate office welcomed baby Eloise and if I can say on the record in this place congratulations to Dylan and Amy on the birth of that wonderful child. Equally, we welcomed baby Jude, who recently had his first birthday, and congratulations to Marissa and Matt on one wonderful year of parenting. Then, foreshadowing things to come, we've also got two wonderful children, Cillian and Sean, children of Aoife and Aaron, who now have the school and childcare juggles that so many families have, which is why it's important that we don't support parents just in these first six months—as we're dealing with in this piece of legislation—but that we support parents and working families throughout those critical early years. We know it puts pressure on family budgets, and we know that there are families that are doing it tough right now, so this is one thing we can do to support families, but it comes in partnership with a whole range of other important policies to support working families to make sure they can give their kids the best start in life. It works in partnership with our plans for the middle of this year to deliver cheaper child care, so that, when you no longer are able to spend every waking moment with your beloved new child and you hand them over for the first time to a highly qualified early childhood educator, you are able to do that without it breaking the bank.</para>
<para>The supports we will put in place, which will come into effect in the middle of this year, will make child care more affordable for 1.2 million families. And, because of the National Quality Framework, which was introduced more than a decade ago, again, by this side of the House, we know that the quality of child care and the quality of early childhood education and care is so much more than it was just a few decades ago—again, giving children the best start in life. If you think about the other things that educate children and help them understand how the world works, I'm proud that we're part of a government that introduced ABC Kids—one of the great investments in our public broadcaster.</para>
<para>I'm pleased that this year, for families whose children might need medication either on an ongoing basis or on an ad hoc basis—again, because this government was elected—medicines are $12.50 cheaper. That does make a difference when you're pushing the pram, as I do, to the Beaufort Street chemist and you see that things are getting cheaper when it comes to those absolute essentials—and products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are essential. Doing what we can to make them cheaper is something that we should, and have, done. At the same time, when parents go back to work after having had that great six months of paid parental leave—coming into effect from 2026— we want to make sure that they are going back to secure, well-paid jobs. That's why you've seen us pass legislation to enhance job security. It's why you've seen us take action by writing to Fair Work to back a pay increase for those on the lowest of wages—the minimum wage. Again, that's something that we should all welcome.</para>
<para>If we think about the challenges we have when it comes to making sure that parents, when they are on the government paid parental leave scheme and are returning to work, have good, secure, well-paid jobs, we have to be honest that we still have some big challenges ahead of us when it comes to delivering on gender equality. We know from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's 2020-21 employer census that women continue to dominate part-time and casual roles. They are more likely to be in insecure forms of casual work. We know that currently only two out of every five full-time employees are women. And the gender pay gap, while it continues to reduce, means that women, on average, earn $25,800 less per year than men. There is no cause for this other than that we haven't, to this point, got the policy design right to deliver true gender equality, and this legislation we are debating today is one step towards that.</para>
<para>We also know there's a severe underrepresentation of women when it comes to CEOs and roles of business leadership. Only two out of every five managers are women. And we know there is so much more to be done in terms of ensuring that we lift up our entire society by achieving gender equality. Gender equality is business for all of us. Gender equality is about making sure that those children who will be benefitting from spending more time with their families, more time with their parents, their carers or their mums and dads will, when they grow up and enter the workforce, be entering a workforce where we have ensured pay equity, proper equality of opportunity, and the equal, fair society that every Australian expects us in this place to be working towards.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I applaud the government for introducing the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, and I would like to acknowledge former Senator Stirling Griff for raising this issue during his time in the Senate. In his speech on 11 June back in 2020, the then senator said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is inequity between two families on the same combined income: they would be eligible if the man were the higher income earner but not eligible if the woman were the higher income earner, which is just unfair. The current rules just don't reflect the realities of modern parenting, with more dads staying at home to care for children. The number of stay-at-home fathers has grown to 80,000 in 2016, based on the latest census data. It is time to move away from models that assume children will be cared for by a primary carer who is the mother. Modern parents don't define themselves in this way, and it's time the legislation doesn't either.</para></quote>
<para>That was back in 2020.</para>
<para>In July last year I received an email from a constituent, and I'd like to read it out here. It said: 'Dear Ms Sharkie, I'm an emergency department doctor. My income hovers just over the threshold for the paid parental leave. My partner is a gin distiller. His projected income this year is around $45,000. I'm currently seven months pregnant with our first child and as such have been looking into paid parental leave. The current entitlement would not be enough to support our family. So our hope was for my partner to use the parental leave and I would go back to work. I have to admit, I have been shocked by how sexist the system remains, even in 2022. If our genders were swapped we would be entitled almost without question. However, because the income threshold is based on the income of the mother/female, our application has been rejected, despite the fact that my partner was going to be the one using the vast majority of the leave. I am shocked to see such a system still exists in 2022—a system that is still based on the fact that "a woman stays home and the man or father goes to work".'</para>
<para>It's quite rare for a policy to deliver significant social as well as economic gains, but this one delivers both. Australia has higher rates of female workforce participation than in many OECD countries, yet women are far more likely to work part-time than women in other advanced economies, and the main reason they work part-time is to care for children.</para>
<para>This bill, which encourages a more equitable sharing of unpaid care between parents, gives mothers more opportunity to engage in paid work, with clear, positive outcomes for women, families and the economy. For some families, the traditional model, of the male breadwinner and the female carer and second income earner, works well, but for many others it doesn't. Many women reported a desire to participate in more paid work, while many fathers would like to spend more time at home with their children but feel unable to, due to barriers that prevent shifts in traditional work patterns. These traditional family roles and work patterns undermine women's economic security, through reduced pay and lower lifetime earnings. Every woman who is the family's main breadwinner prior to babies arriving is statistically far more likely to drop their work hours than their male partner. Unfortunately, this leads to a pattern that persists well after the children are no longer in care.</para>
<para>But this bill can deliver so much more than economic gains. Overseas studies show that policies allowing fathers to be more engaged in their children's early years have lasting impacts on fathers and their children, and that when men are given greater opportunity to spend time with their children in those early years they tend to have stronger relationships and greater life satisfaction—in essence, they are happier. Children, in turn, benefit from increased time spent with their father as well as from the diversity of their interactions in their early years.</para>
<para>That same constituent contacted my office recently and wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">With our current 5 month old my partner wanted to spend as much time at home with him as possible and was hoping to take parental leave when I returned to work. I love my job as an Emergency Doctor but would have much preferred my child to have the opportunity to spend time with his Dad when I am at work rather than at daycare.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Because I earn about the threshold my partner has been denied the chance to spend this precious time with our child. I feel angry that it's 2023 and a father is only able to access the leave on their own merit if the mother is considered incapacitated. This is grossly unfair to all of the fathers currently playing an active role in their childrens upbringings and almost exclusively affects families where women are the main income earners.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With the change in legislation we are hoping if we are lucky enough to have another child then he will be able to take the full parental leave time to spend being a hands on father to our children.</para></quote>
<para>This bill will encourage more dads to take up paid parental leave, leading to more equitable family roles becoming normalised, thus releasing both men and women from heavily gendered norms that have previously been so prevalent in Australian society. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ANANDA-RAJAH</name>
    <name.id>290544</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The other day I caught my husband flicking through the photos from our children's early years; images from play dates, local parks, kinder gym and music classes. He fell silent and then said, 'I wish I had the opportunity to do this with them.' It struck me that, when my children were born, it was I who scaled back on work, and in those early months spent time at home looking after them. Paid parental leave was not an option for me back then. But then my husband's words brought home the sense of loss he felt for a time that will never return. I take for granted the time I had with my babies, but it was no bed of roses. I would have loved to have had my husband share some of that carer load. But, alas, he was locked out, an indication of how far we need to go in challenging gendered roles: the mother as the homemaker and the father as the breadwinner.</para>
<para>The cost of not challenging social norms means that we further entrench gender inequality as women fall further behind and fathers are denied the opportunity to spend time with their children. Having guided many patients through end-of-life care, I can assure you that on our deathbeds there is no nostalgia for working long hours or having spent time in pointless meetings, but we do assess the quality of our nearest and dearest relationships.</para>
<para>There is much to do in challenging these cultural norms that discourage men from spending time with their newborns. A survey of 842 men conducted by an Australian recruitment agency, Hays, in 2019 indicated that 54 per cent of Australian men believe that new fathers don't take the full parental leave they are entitled to, because of the hit to their finances, while 34 per cent fear being perceived as less committed to their job. However, 80 per cent of men believe that shared parental leave and shared child-rearing responsibility would help breakdown unconscious bias and improve gender diversity—a resounding endorsement for modernising our Paid Parental Leave scheme. We know that many more men want to take time off from work following the birth of their child, based on data from the private sector. Deloitte introduced similar leave entitlements for mothers and fathers in 2015 and saw an increase in the uptake of paid parental leave among fathers from 20 to 40 per cent.</para>
<para>It is telling that 'the fatherhood penalty' is not in our lexicon. In fact, I never want to hear the words 'penalty' and 'parent' associated in the same sentence. According to Treasury, women reduce their hours of paid work by 35 per cent over the first five years following the birth of a child. In contrast, fathers experience only a transient decline in paid work during the first month of parenthood, before resuming previous levels. It's a fatherhood blip rather than a penalty. The downstream effects on women are insidious. Decisions made in the earliest time of a child's life lock in patterns of parenting for years, if not decades, to come. An Australian woman does more caring and twice as much household work even a decade after the birth of her first child. In other words, having children worsens the gendered division of work at home, which persists for years to come, serving neither the mother nor the father's wellbeing.</para>
<para>Australia has one of the least generous parental leave schemes in the OECD, both in terms of rate of pay and the amount of time allocated. Fathers, in particular, receive very little dedicated leave, and their take-up of the scheme is very poor. Currently, the primary carer, who is usually the mother, is eligible for 18 weeks of paid parental leave at minimum wage in addition to any employer scheme. The secondary carer leave, called 'dad and partner pay' provides two weeks at minimum wage, and cannot be taken alongside paid leave from an employer. So, many fathers currently face a substantial pay cut should they take up the scheme in its current form. In addition, 12 weeks of the 18 must be taken as a block, discouraging the shared taking of leave between parents.</para>
<para>It's a cruel irony that the scheme is called 'paid parental leave' when almost all the primary parental leave recipients are, in fact, mothers. In 2017-18, less than 0.5 per cent of parents using the scheme were men—the second-lowest in the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries. A Grattan Institute report from 2021 indicates that three in four men are passing up the right to PPL because it's probably not worth the hassle. International experience shows that when targeted dad-leave schemes are introduced take-up is actually very good. Uptake was 80 per cent among fathers in 2018 in Quebec, compared to 28 per cent when the scheme was introduced. More-evolved Australian businesses have realised that equal paid parental leave schemes are good for the bottom line because they help to retain the talent. PwC reported a reduction in the proportion of their staff who've resigned while on paid parental leave from 6.4 per cent in 2017, before a more flexible option was introduced, to 3.3 per cent in 2021.</para>
<para>Improving paid parental leave dovetails with our desire to make gender inequality extinct. Paid parental leave was a key reform raised at the Jobs and Skills Summit by business, parents and their advocates. The Albanese government has listened. This amendment is the most significant reform to the PPL scheme since its establishment by Labor in 2011 under Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The changes to commence on 1 July this year are the first stage of reforms that will lead to the scheme's expansion to 26 weeks by 2026. Approximately 180,000 parents in Australia, and 960 in Higgins, will benefit from this scheme this year. Our bill will expand access to the scheme and provide more flexibility to families.</para>
<para>The key changes include combining the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme, eliminating mother and dad components—no more gendered titles like 'primary carer'; we're getting rid of those. This will make it easier for families to access the payments and decide who will claim paid leave first. We will expand access by introducing a $350,000 family income test which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test, which currently sits at $156,000. This change to income thresholds will open the scheme up for more families. We are also allowing parents to choose how they take their leave days. Until now, a 12-week block had to be taken, but these changes now mean that paid leave may be as small as one day at a time, with periods of work in between, so parents will have flexibility. The reformed PPL scheme will reserve a dedicated use-it-or-lose-it portion for each parent in order to incentivise uptake. This will be two weeks for each parent, but it will be reviewed as the scheme increases from its current 20 weeks to 26 weeks in 2026.</para>
<para>Fathers and partners will be able to access PPL at the same time as any employer funded parental leave scheme, which is currently not the case. Currently, many fathers would have to take a pay cut and drop to the minimum wage in order to access paid leave. We are allowing them, like mothers, to now access employer and government schemes were employer schemes exist, which currently affects about 50 per cent of all businesses. We want that to increase. We hope that we see an increase in businesses bringing in their own in-house PPL schemes. It's a great way to attract and retain talent.</para>
<para>Early involvement of dads sets up a virtuous cycle of care and a more equal division of housework, and it helps build confidence in fathers' parenting skills from soothing baby to changing nappies, bathtime and bed. All are skills, and all can be learned with practice, free from the pressures of work. A healthy bond from birth also sets fathers up for greater engagement in developmental activities like reading and playtime later on in life. I want to break those social norms that box in men as breadwinners and women as homemakers—in fact, I want to smash them. The modern family in Higgins, with both parents working, demands flexibility and an opportunity to do things a little better than their parents' generation. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would just like to comment on the member for Higgins's fine contribution just now. Member for Higgins, I join you in wishing to smash those gender norms not just for the sake of women but for the sake of men; we all benefit, and mostly our children benefit. Thank you for those comments.</para>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 is an important step towards supporting Australian families, and one I welcome. As a former midwife and academic researching maternal and child health, I deeply understand how giving children the best start in life is one of the most powerful drivers of lifelong health. It's preventative health 101. Creating an environment that promotes parent-child attachment is key to that. A law that supports both parents to care for their young children at home with paid leave when they choose to is good public policy.</para>
<para>Good public policy should always be supported by evidence, and there is plenty of evidence to support this bill. We began to understand the importance of nurturing parent-infant attachment in the 1950s with the groundbreaking work of Bowlby and Ainsworth. Their work was followed on by Emerson, and a raft of subsequent studies has demonstrated that attachment is crucial for children's physical, psychological, behavioural and developmental wellbeing. Longitudinal studies have confirmed lifelong benefit from strong, healthy attachment.</para>
<para>We have been slow to embrace paid parental leave in Australia. I spent many years studying and working in women's and children's health research in Sweden, a place, alongside other Nordic countries, we have looked to for guidance on best practice policy for families. In those days, Swedish colleagues regularly asked me, 'Why do you not have parent leave in Australia?' Very straightforward, the Swedes! For them it was as fundamental as Medicare is to us. Since the introduction of the Swedish parental leave reform in 1974, fathers have had the same rights as mothers to use parental leave. Parental benefit is 240 days per parent, a total of 480 days, and it's distributed between parents as they choose. Sweden introduced the 'use it or lose it' system in 1995, recognising—all the things that we've heard about—why fathers don't take up this leave. They reserved a month specifically for fathers that they would lose if they didn't take it. They watched it, and they decided they needed to raise it to two months in 2002, and then, in a bid to achieve further gender equity, this was increased to three months in 2015. There's a lesson there. We need to monitor how well our system works and be prepared to amend it again if we need to.</para>
<para>There is strong evidence in Sweden of paternal and maternal leave being taken up. In 2013 almost 90 per cent of fathers took some amount of parental leave. The number of days taken varies between men and women still. Overall, 44 per cent of parental leave benefit recipients were men, and 56 per cent were women. It's getting closer. Even so, the proportion of total days used by men has slowly increased from seven per cent of all leave in 1989 to 25 per cent in 2013. Furthermore, the percentage of couples that share parental leave equitably is slowly increasing, indicating a more equitable distribution of child rearing that has benefits for mothers, fathers, other key carers and infants. The evidence is there, and I support the bill's intention to further incentivise dads and non-birth parents to share the load of care responsibility. We know that, when caring responsibilities are shared, the child, the birthing partner, the family, all benefit—physically, mentally and socially. It's great public policy.</para>
<para>Based on what we have learned, though, from the long history of parent leave in Sweden, I encourage the government to fund an effective and targeted campaign to ensure that non-birth parents are actively encouraged to access these new benefits. I support increasing paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 20 weeks. This is a great start, and I really look forward to seeing paid parental leave increase to 26 weeks in line with international best practice.</para>
<para>Removing the categories of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants and removing the requirement that the primary claimant must be the birth parent are positive steps towards recognising the diversity of Australian families. I hope that the families of Indi, who I represent and who are configured in many shapes and sizes, find accessing parental leave easier and more inclusive.</para>
<para>Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families, and, most importantly, more opportunity for women. Reforming the Paid Parental Leave scheme is one part, and an important part, a groundbreaking part actually, of improving women's economic equality and encouraging greater economic independence for women. That, again, confers lifelong benefits on women and children.</para>
<para>As the minister said in introducing the bill, we need a system that reflects modern families. We need a system that improves the flexibility for families to balance work and family life in a way that suits their diverse needs. But—and I have to spend some time talking about this because it is so interrelated—parents can't go back to work if there's no-one to look after their child. This bill will hopefully take some pressure off finding child care by supporting families to provide care at home, particularly in the child's first year. But access to affordable, high-quality and flexible child care has to work hand in glove as part of this policy, and further reforms are necessary. Child care has been a key focus for the government, and I encourage them to continue on this path, for, if we're truly going to support parents entering and staying in the workforce, we need to do this.</para>
<para>I draw the government's attention particularly to rural and communities such as mine, where finding child care has always been a challenge—and it has never been a greater challenge than it is right now. High-quality, accessible early childhood education and care is an essential service in a community where we want maximum workforce participation. For parents, it allows them to work, to train, to study, to open doors—and to provide for their families, of course. For children, it keeps them safe and healthy, assists in their development and builds their skills for school and well into the future.</para>
<para>A thriving childcare service is crucial everywhere but particularly in rural and regional areas where child care is a linchpin service in maintaining the sustainability of small towns and communities. Having childcare services locally, even in thin markets, even where there are not many kids, means that young families can live and work and stay local. If childcare centres close, then the community loses a key hub. In Indi, we've experienced the threat of closure in several small towns where the market is thin and childcare workers are so scarce.</para>
<para>Very early on in my tenure as the member for Indi, I was very pleased to successfully advocate and work with the people of Bellbridge to secure their local childcare centre. That little community has continued to go from strength to strength, and I would argue, based on the strength of their child care. Once a local childcare centre closes down, this is what happens. Parents have to take their children somewhere else, which often leads to a flow-on effect of that child entering a school in another town. Subsequently, this leads to school closures, the loss of opportunities, the loss of childcare workers or primary school teachers who lived there—the list goes on—and, ultimately, contributes to the desertification of country towns.</para>
<para>Family policy is crucial to rural and regional development, and child care remains an urgent issue in Indi. I need to tell you about this. Each month—and this has really grown for me in Indi—parents, both mums and dads, write to me about how hard it is to find a childcare placement for their child. They tell me that this means they're delaying going back to work. Many of them are critical healthcare workers, such as psychologists, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, not to mention logistics supply people and all the other people we have in our regions. The lack of available places is actually severely compounding the problem of essential worker shortages in Indi.</para>
<para>In Wangaratta, some children have been on the waitlist for 18 months, with over 100 families now on their waitlist. In Bright, there's a 70-child waitlist. In Wodonga, families have their children on waitlists at 10 or more centres and still can't get a spot. Working parents are forced to quit their jobs—I'm not exaggerating—or reduce their hours because there are not enough childcare places. So paid parental leave reform is brilliant. It's good. I'm happy about it. We must, though, work in lockstep with childcare places as well.</para>
<para>One of the reasons there are no childcare places available is that there are not enough educators. One educator in Wangaratta, who's worked in the sector since 1994, tells me she has never seen the level of educators so low. In Corryong, a tiny town in the Upper Murray, minimal childcare staff mean women are considering leaving town because they can't return to work. They estimate that at least 10 more childcare workers are required to meet the demand. I recently met a highly trained nurse in Cudgewa who told me how badly needed she was at the local hospital, but she simply couldn't go to work because she could not get childcare. Parents who send their children to The Lake View Children's Centre in Mount Beauty talk about how they feel the centre is in survival mode when it comes to staffing. They're simply not getting paid enough. One mum told me: 'We need our childcare centres to retain quality staff to provide our children with the expert care and education they need. Access facilities and better pay for our educators should be priorities.' And I couldn't agree more.</para>
<para>I welcome the government's commitment towards lifting the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families for the first child in care and keeping higher subsidy rates for the second and additional children in care. Great work! Making child care cheaper, though, is one part of making child care more accessible. I have to emphasise that—and many of my colleagues from the regions are saying the same thing—regional communities can't take up this cheaper child care because they're limited by having the child care to take up. This government also needs to prioritise attracting, developing and retaining quality childcare staff to develop the workforce that will meet the demand that comes with cheaper child care, a demand that's well and truly being felt in Indi.</para>
<para>We must increase the minimum award pay for childcare workers. Improving pay conditions in the childcare sector is one of the reasons why I ultimately supported the government's secure jobs, better pay bill last year. Secondly, the government must continue to invest in training a childcare workforce. The government has agreed on a $1 billion national skills agreement, which will provide additional funding for a fee-free TAFE in 2023 to provide more training for industries just like child care, and I welcome that. A longer-term agreement aimed at driving sector reform and supporting women's workforce participation is still being negotiated. I sincerely hope that growing the childcare workforce is directly addressed in this agreement. I also call on the government to fully implement the National Children's Education and Care Workforce Strategy, which seeks to address recruitment, retainment and sustainability of the childcare workforce. I also welcome the upcoming comprehensive review by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on child care. I look forward to reading their findings and recommendations, and working with government to see them fulfilled.</para>
<para>Thirdly, and finally, I call on the government to look at the many intersecting factors causing worker shortages, including childcare workers, in regional and rural Australia and placing enormous pressure on families. One factor I consistently hear about is the lack of affordable housing. The government's upcoming housing legislative package aims to address affordable housing. I'll be closely watching how this package will prioritise affordable housing and affordable rentals in regional and rural areas. If this doesn't happen, critical sectors like child care will continue to suffer along with all the flow-on effects this has for small communities. I look forward to working with the government on how this package can truly deliver for regional electorates like Indi.</para>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 is a very important reform in family policy, gender equity, and child and parent health. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to follow the member for Indi and the member for Higgins, who both brought their medical history and knowledge to this very important topic. I also hear the member for Indi when she talks about how important it is that we support reforms for child care and that child care is accessible to women across this country, including in regional areas. That is a huge part of the gender equity puzzle our government is absolutely trying to address and solve. Thank you for raising those issues as well.</para>
<para>I am passionate about paid parental leave. It will surprise no-one in this place to hear that because I bang on about it a lot here. I feel like I spent most of my first term speaking about it. In fact, in my first speech I called my husband a unicorn because my family is in the unusual position of Australian families where I work full-time and my husband works part-time. We are unusual in that situation because our workplace laws, with the support we've put around, have not supported Australian families to be in that position. We have set up a system which is a good system but has not really allowed for the gender equity we want to see in our community.</para>
<para>As someone who worked in this building for the last Labor government when we first brought in paid parental leave, I know that that scheme in itself was a game changer. Particularly for low-paid women and women in insecure work, that Labor scheme, that first paid parental leave scheme we had in this country, was the first time they had the option of accessing pay after they had a child. That is a truly game changing Labor reform. But it's been a decade since we brought that in, so we are well and truly due an update, and that is absolutely what this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, is all about. I am so proud and pleased to be standing here, after a term advocating for action on paid parental leave, saying that our government is getting on with it and that we understand modern families need a flexible scheme that supports mums and dads to take time out with a newborn and to know they will be supported with pay during that time and will have good jobs to go back to. I am very pleased to be here today.</para>
<para>We know we still have in this country a huge problem with gender equality. We are just not where we should be. Overall, Australia ranks 43rd out of 146 countries for gender equality. It is not great if you consider where we should be as a wealthy, progressive country, particularly if you consider that in 2011 we ranked 23rd—so we've unfortunately been going in the wrong direction, mainly under the previous Liberal-National government. It is very much our government's intention to turn that around to improve gender equality in this country.</para>
<para>The gender pay gap remains one of the standout areas where we need to do so much better. Since 2006 we've dropped from 13th to 36th in women's economic participation. Women make up only 38 per cent of all full-time employees in Australia and 68½ per cent of the part-time or casual workforce—what a disparity there! We're also ranked 37th for women's representation in senior, official and management roles, and we see persistent gaps in industries such as manufacturing, IT and STEM, which continue to be male dominated, while others such as education are dominated the other way, by women.</para>
<para>What we know is that a lot of this does come back to the way we support women to juggle work and families and how we support men to juggle work and families. If we have a system that encourages only women to take time out after they've had a baby, what we're saying is that, from that point on in a woman's working life, they will be the person who, after taking maybe that initial year off, will then go back to work part time, probably until their child is in late primary school. At that time they may find that re-entering the workforce full time is quite a difficult task—it has been a long gap. Then, obviously, we see that flowing on into women's economic security as they get older. In fact, we now see that older women are the group most at risk of homelessness in our society. So this is an issue that flows right through women's lives.</para>
<para>At the same time that this is happening for women, we see what is happening for men's careers. I've seen data that shows that when men have babies it's common that they get a pay rise and a promotion. The exact opposite of what happens for women at that time happens for man. I know from talking to people in my community, and we know from work that has been done in this area, that so many men in our community do want to be able to take more time to be able to care for their children and support their children after they've been born. Unfortunately, to date our paid parental scheme has not supported those men to do that, so I am pleased that this scheme is going to make that change.</para>
<para>These changes to paid parental leave will mean more choice for families. There will be more flexibility in how and when partners take time off work and how they share care. There will be more support so that both parents can spend that critical time with their child in those important first two years and create a pattern of care throughout their lives.</para>
<para>Again, I will draw on my own experience here—I do have small children, so this really resonates for me. You see massive difference. From the very beginning my husband has known that there are jobs that he does. It's not me telling him to do jobs. It's not me explaining how to change a nappy, how to do the bath or what the routine is. That's stuff he knows because he does it and because he's had the privilege of having the time to do it. Not all men in our community have had the privilege of doing that, because they have not been in a position where they've been economically supported to do that, so I'm very pleased that this legislation starts to make some change on that.</para>
<para>Of course, it gives more opportunity for women to be supported both in their parenting life and in their working life, and, as I've been talking about, it maximises women's economic equality. These changes will come into effect on 1 July this year, when we can combine the two existing payments—parental leave pay and dad and partner pay—into a single 20-week scheme, removing the notion of a primary and a secondary carer and making it easier for both parents to access the payment.</para>
<para>Both parents will have the same opportunities, the choice and the flexibility in how and when they choose to take paid parental leave, so families can make decisions about what works best for them. They could take the leave in a continuous block. They could take it in short bursts. They could even take single days at a time. It means that dads will no longer have to be on unpaid leave from their work to access government PPL. Just as women have been able to do, they will be able to access the scheme at the same time as being on paid leave from their work. A portion of the scheme will still be reserved for each parent so that parents can share the leave and both can take some time at home with their child. This scheme is also going to be designed to make the transition back to work easier, allowing flexibility around when you take the leave so it doesn't have to be a continuous block. Over time, we move to 26 weeks of leave by 2026, delivering a full six months of leave. That will be a really important change in our country.</para>
<para>All the evidence from overseas, where a lot of OECD countries do have much more generous paid parental leave schemes than does our country, shows that a strengthened PPL system delivers important benefits to health and wellbeing not just for women, not just for men, but, of course, for children as well. For parents, more time at home means that they do get to spend that time caring, being part of early childhood development, being the people who know the routines, set the routines and manage the routines, and who do that without having to juggle work at the same time. For children, it means seeing that they can be cared for by parents of both genders—that Mum and Dad are both there to do that caring role. Again, if we think about gender equity in this country and the long way we have to go still to achieve gender equity, setting up those norms of gender roles from the very start of a child's life is so important. If a young child sees that Mum and Dad can both be carers and that it's not a role that just goes to women, that changes their whole perspective on how these roles play out, again, throughout our community and throughout our society.</para>
<para>At the moment in Australia, dads take up the government paid parental leave scheme at about half the rate of mums. The scheme as it stands has limited the ability of parents to share caring responsibility. The current eligibility rules have also been unfair for families where the mother is the higher income earner. In a situation where two families have the same household income, one might in fact be ineligible for government PPL because the mother earns more, whereas the other family, where the father earns more, may be eligible. Our changes will fix these issues. It is important, as we go through this, that we continue to take a lens of gender equity to the improvements to the scheme. I very much hope that we will see a 'use it or lose it' component to the scheme. Again, evidence from overseas shows us that take-up of these types of schemes by dads is most likely when there is a portion that is reserved just for fathers. That encourages men to see it as a scheme that is there for them to access and that they are in fact responsible for using for their children.</para>
<para>I want to commend Australian businesses for their approach to supporting Australian families that are combining work and early caring responsibilities. We know that a lot of businesses in recent years have really changed the way they run their paid parental leave schemes. They now look at much more of an equity model, where leave can be taken by men and by women, moving away from this idea of primary and secondary carers. It will be good to see this updated scheme—this much improved scheme from our government—working hand in hand with employers across our country, delivering the best outcomes for businesses, parents and kids.</para>
<para>We are also doing a lot of other work in other areas. Paid parental leave is just one way our government is improving workforce participation and equality for women in our country. Last year, our government set up the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, chaired by Sam Mostyn AO. It has been tasked with advising us on how to improve women's equality right throughout the economic sphere. We know that single reforms or changes, even super important ones like paid parental leave, won't do all the work themselves. We need to work across the spectrum to make sure that women can realise their full potential in the economic sphere as well as in their caring roles. So the taskforce is focusing on how gender responsive policy and budgeting will advance gender equality in Australia and the measures that we need to make this happen. They're looking at issues like the gender pay gap, workforce participation, patterns of paid and unpaid care, safe and respectful workplaces, and planning for skills and industries of the future. The task force has already recognised that reform is needed in heavily feminised industries, such as child care and aged care, and the government has acted to do all it can to raise wages in these industries. Again, those are caring roles that traditionally we've seen as women's roles—industries which are heavily dominated by women and which for too long have been underpaid. We need to make sure women are supported in those industries and are able to work in those industries.</para>
<para>That goes hand in hand, obviously, with our government's efforts to make child care more affordable for Australian families. Once paid parental leave ends, most families get to that point where they need to access paid child care. Again, the evidence has told us that the cost of child care in this country has just shut too many families out. For many women, when they've finished their paid parental leave and are looking to return to work, there has been an economic decision where they've had to say, 'I can only do three days a week because I earn less than my husband or partner; the childcare fees are so expensive that, actually, I'll be working for nothing on that fourth or fifth day.' Our reforms to make child care cheaper for 96 per cent of Australian families will very much change that equation for Australian families.</para>
<para>We are making it easier for Australian families, for men and women, to share the caring load from birth, with an improved Paid Parental Leave scheme, to that point where children are entering child care. It will allow for that ongoing flexibility and ongoing sharing of roles that we know is good for Australian families, good for our children and good for our whole community as we see women being able to increase their participation in the workforce and men being able to take up roles that many of them want—to care for their children and to be an active part of their family life. We see all of that as our government continues to work to close the gender pay gap and to support women in low-paid industries. This is really exciting to be speaking here today on such a bill that has been 10 years coming but which I know will make a huge difference to the lives of Australian women and Australian families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the second reading of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. I start by commending our shadow minister for his contribution as our lead speaker. He indicated the coalition's support for this bill and made a couple of important historical points that I also want to reiterate, particularly around disappointment about the inability of the coalition, after we won the 2013 election, to implement our paid leave scheme, which of course was blocked in the Senate.</para>
<para>That is really regrettable because, on top of the scheme that's been in place since 2011, we could have dramatically enhanced support for paid leave. We took it to an election, and the people of Australia elected us. They wanted us and our policies, and it is a shame that that policy was not enacted, because there are a lot of people out there who would have benefited significantly from that. It is regrettable that we have a history of class warfare when it comes to supporting parents having children. There's nothing wrong with being successful and earning a high income. That's not something to demonise. Certainly I will take up every opportunity to stand up for all parents getting the most support they can get and flexibility around being able to care for their children. Higher-income earners are doing nothing wrong; we are lucky to have them. It's a shame. The scheme we sought to put in place, just to remind everyone, would have provided payments on actual income up to a cap of 150,000 a year pro rata. I think there is nothing wrong with people that earn $150,000 a year. It's becoming, in real terms, a lower and lower amount, with inflation running as hot as it is.</para>
<para>A mere 10 or 12 years since paid leave was first introduced, it's pleasant to see how much society has moved on. We obviously are all coming together from a bipartisan point of view to remove some of the old stereotypes that were in place, even a mere 10 or 12 years ago, around the role of men and women as parents and carers, and the concept of differentiation. As the shadow minister pointed out, a lot of the measures being adopted in this bill are measures that we ourselves announced in the budget last year. We support that.</para>
<para>In particular, we support the concept of equity between parents. It shouldn't be the case, for example, if a mother is earning a higher income than the father, that the couple are at a financial disadvantage under the individual income test. That's obviously ridiculous. Parents will be quite reasonably making their own decisions about how they will structure care arrangements for their newborn children in a way that works for them as a family, taking into account all sorts of issues, including income. They will not have a situation where they might make a different decision to the one they want to make because there is a penalty in place based on the income of a mother versus a father. This change removes that scenario, with the $350,000 cap for couples. We want to see equity and decision-making in the hands of parents, not being guided or interfered with because a government policy gives a different outcome depending on the decision they make. This is getting rid of the two different categories of leave, and giving flexibility around the way in which to take that leave.</para>
<para>The great thing about 2023 is that we are continuing to break down a lot of the stereotypes around the roles that people were expected to play within the family unit in decades gone by. Being just shy of my 40th birthday, I'm in that cohort of people with families and children. I have a lot of—what's the popular term?—lived experience in managing child care and the like in my own family, with my own partner. All of our friends are doing it in the ways that suit them best. Giving people that flexibility and giving parents the ability to make decisions in their interests, unique to their circumstances, is really important.</para>
<para>I'd like to commend the businesses out there that have put in place their own schemes in addition to the base-level scheme, the paid leave scheme that we're amending here, which every Australian has access to. These companies are making sure that, in their employment agreements, they are putting in place parental leave well beyond this. I mentioned at the start of my remarks that there is a growing cohort of people who don't have access to this government scheme, but it is certainly the case that a lot of employers are making the decision and recognising the need, from a talent attraction and retention point of view, to make sure that they are as family friendly and flexible as possible.</para>
<para>Gone are the days of merely accommodating maternity leave and keeping a role available for someone while they leave the workforce to raise children. Now I think there is a growing and important expectation that employers are providing all the support necessary for parents through their decision to have children and providing the leave they need to care for their children; and ensuring that they have financial support through those schemes and that the impact on their career around the time they leave the workforce is as limited as possible. There is also the expectation that workplace support and pathways will still be open to them into the future whilst maintaining flexibility for them to make decisions on raising children that are in their and their family's best interests.</para>
<para>We in the coalition are very passionate about family. We are very passionate about the family unit being the core of our society and making sure that family is the priority in our society, our community and our economy, and never the other way around. People should never have to make decisions that disadvantage their families because they have to to avoid an economic penalty. We will always be striving and looking for opportunities to better support the family unit.</para>
<para>It is not—this is a really difficult point to make—in the best interest of people's individual decision-making. As a nation, we have to make sure that we're supporting people to have as many children as they want to have and not in any way putting in coercive policies. We understand how vitally important it is that the demographic structure of our nation ensures that a proportion of our population continues to be significant enough to support the entirety of that population. We know that countries like Japan and Italy have very significant ageing populations and emerging significant challenges in providing the care that everyone in their society deserves, with a diminishing proportion of people providing the economic activity and the tax base to do that.</para>
<para>In this country, migration plays a very significant part in supporting our population pyramid. We also have a higher fertility rate than some of those countries. But we used to say, across the western world, that's not the case at all. We've just seen a milestone in China, where, for the first time probably in history, certainly with available records—putting aside the awful consequences of Communist Party policy under Mao Zedong and the years of famine et cetera—they now have a natural reduction occurring in their population. That is purely around the excellent outcome of modern medicine, meaning we are living longer, which we all are very much a grateful for, but with a dramatically reduced fertility rate. Obviously China had some social engineering policies partly associated with that, like the one-child policy. But they are in line with a lot of countries that, frankly, also have this issue of low fertility driven by the choice of couples to perhaps have fewer children than was the case in generations gone by.</para>
<para>We need to make sure that, on an absolute choice basis, nothing is standing in the way of people having as many children as they want to. That's why initiatives such as the ones in this bill are so vitally important. It's everyone's decision as to whether to have children in the first place, as well as how many they want to have. But we don't want to be in a situation where people are wanting to have that second or third child, or whatever their choice might be, but feel that they'll be financially disadvantaged in doing so and don't proceed to do so. Firstly, we love families to be as big as they can be, based on personal choice. I certainly think children are a blessing and the more the better, within reason. But, equally, it's also vitally important that, for our societal cohesion and our ability to provide for everyone, particularly our ageing generations, the services and support of government that they deserve and need, we make sure that we are managing the population profile of our nation so that we always have the economic capacity to provide that. That's vitally important. In this and in other policy areas, we always want to be supporting people to make their own decisions but also ensure that there's nothing stopping them from making a decision in a certain direction because there's an economic disadvantage to that.</para>
<para>With those comments, I commend this bill. One issue not addressed in this bill is expanding it to 26 weeks, which the government has indicated is going to be occurring in a subsequent bill. I don't know why that couldn't happen in this bill, but we hope that the government intends to honour that commitment and that we see that bill before the House in the near future. But certainly the principles of equality and flexibility are natural attributes of the coalition. These are policy positions that we in many cases had in our last budget, and on that we support the bill, and I commend it to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to contribute to this debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. One of the first things we did as a government was to hold a Jobs and Skills Summit, bringing together all sectors of our country to address the issues facing our nation and together consider real solutions that will have a real and effective impact. Paid parental leave reform was one of the most frequent proposals raised at this successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September. We made the summit one of our first priorities, and we did this because we are a sensible, proactive government. This is another example of a sensible and practical bill addressing issues that real-world people are facing today. This government has listened to the issues raised by everyday people, and we are responding to these issues and making sure that we make changes to create a better future. This is a government for all Australians. This is a government that cares about and looks out for working families.</para>
<para>This bill is aimed at improving the lives of working families, just like the many hardworking families in my electorate of Hunter, and these families deserve a fair go. Having a child is one of the most amazing times of someone's life, but it can also come with added pressures. Families in Hunter and around Australia deserve to have the financial support in place that they need so they can focus on what's important: providing the best possible start to the life of the newest member of their family. This bill is supporting better outcomes for children. It's important that the decision to have a child should not come at a financial sacrifice for women. Women should not have to choose between having a family and maintaining economic equality. That's why this bill is helping to advance women's economic equality. The time women are out of the workforce to bring a child into this world should not leave them worse off when it comes time for them to retire.</para>
<para>Of course, as with all nation-shaping legislation that has been passed through this place, it was the Labor Party who were responsible, so it's no surprise that it was when the Labor Party were last in government, in 2011, that the Paid Parental Leave scheme was first established. I'm proud to be a part of this government, which is taking the most significant steps to improve the scheme since its establishment. The government is modernising the Paid Parental Leave scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed since it was established over a decade ago.</para>
<para>We said we would be a government that holds nobody back and leaves nobody behind. This amendment is giving those who were held back previously an opportunity to access paid parental leave and all of the benefits that come with it. Around 181,000 families will benefit from the changes in this bill, including around 4,300 parents who will gain access who would have been ineligible underneath the current scheme. That's 181,000 families with more support and 181,000 children with a better start in life.</para>
<para>The current scheme was a significant introduction in 2011, but today it is not fit for purpose and does not entirely support the changing needs of a modern family in 2023. The current scheme does not do enough to provide access to fathers and partners. It limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back into the workforce. Eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher-income earner. Our bill fixes these issues.</para>
<para>We are giving more families access to the government payment, making sure that parents have more flexibility in how they take leave. We encourage parents to share the care because we know and understand that in 2023 parenting is a shared responsibility more than ever before. We are a government that gets straight onto the job. There's no fluffing around on this side of the parliament. That's why from 1 July 2023 this bill will deliver six important changes. The current scheme offers two separate payments. This bill will combine these two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme. I know firsthand what it's like to become a new parent, and I also know what it's like becoming a dad for the second time. It can be challenging, and it's important that the load is shared between both parents. That is why one of the changes we'll be making is reserving a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off work after a birth or an adoption.</para>
<para>The time you spend with your child as a newborn is invaluable, and it is an experience that you don't get many times throughout your life. I know that when my girls were born I would have loved to have had the chance to be at home with them as much as I could, but unfortunately I had to go back to work, leaving my amazing wife, Alex, at home to look after them. This is a common occurrence for many Australian families. It's not fair on mothers, and it certainly isn't fair on the fathers. This is exactly what ensuring both parties can take time off work will address. This is a bill that is good for both the parents and children of Australia and the Hunter because when fathers take a greater caring role from the start it benefits mums, dads and their kids.</para>
<para>This bill is about modernising the scheme and bringing it into line with modern parenting. Gone are the days when raising children and looking after the newborn was solely the responsibility of the mother. It was this type of mindset that too often limited the Paid Parental Leave scheme, making it difficult for one parent to access the payment. The changes being introduced will remove the notion of primary and secondary carers and make it easier for both parents to access this payment.</para>
<para>Our government wants to make sure that all families who need the support of the Paid Parental Leave scheme have the chance to access it. We know that an individual income does not tell the whole story of a family's income, and so we are expanding access to the scheme by introducing a $350,000 family income test which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test.</para>
<para>When you're a government in touch with the people who you represent, you understand the needs of people in the community. We understand that not every family is the same, and that's why there is a need for increased flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days. That is what this bill and these changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme will deliver. These changes will allow eligible fathers and partners to access the payment, irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements, because, again, we're a government that leaves no-one behind.</para>
<para>This is a bill that, as a father and a man, I am proud to speak on and support. This is a bill that sends a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. This bill shows that, as a government, we value both men and women as carers. I truly hope that this is reflected and reinforced in workplaces and throughout all of our communities. This bill brings all-round benefits. The government's paid parental leave reform is good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for the economy. This government is delivering a win for all, a win that will have real benefits for real people who need it the most. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WARE</name>
    <name.id>300123</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in favour of the Paid Parental Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, which expands the financial support currently provided by Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme. I am particularly glad to be speaking on this bill as we approach United Nations International Women's Day. We still have a long way to go with women's equality in Australia. We currently rank 43rd out of 146 in the world. This is not good enough for Australia. We can do better. Improving paid parental leave is one way to improve women's economic security and improve gender equity.</para>
<para>Paid parental leave changes lives. Indeed, had it been in place when I had my boys, James and Nicholas, back in 2006, it would have made my time as a new mum considerably easier and far less stressful. It would have provided my husband, Michael, with an opportunity to be fully involved with the boys as babies, and it would have provided us as a family with choices that were not available to us. Numerous studies have shown that paid parental leave schemes provide invaluable assistance to Australians—Australian parents, Australian workers, Australian employers and the Australian economy overall. Without doubt, paid parental leave is one of the most important economic measures that governments can adopt to support women—Australian women. And, when Australian women do well, their families do well and our country does well.</para>
<para>By way of background: the Paid Parental Leave scheme commenced on 1 January 2011. This bill provides amendments to extend parental leave pay from 18 weeks to 20 weeks. It will combine parental leave pay with dad and partner pay, forming a single payment of 20 weeks that can be shared between parents. The measure seeks to make sharing of parental leave between parents a central part of the scheme. A parent who does not have a partner at the time will also be able to claim a maximum of 20 weeks parental leave. In this way, the bill seeks to improve gender equality by removing the current default of parental leave pay that assumes that birth parents are primary carers and that birth parents are not the primary income earners in a household.</para>
<para>The bill expands access to paid parental leave by introducing a $350,000 income test on the family income rather than the current individual income test, which is just over $150,000. I am very pleased to say that, in the period between 2010 and 2017, the number of women with a taxable income of more than $150,000 doubled. However, families can currently be treated differently depending on which parent has the higher income. This is grossly unfair to women who are the primary income earners, and does not accord with modern Australia. Indeed, when I had my boys, this was precisely what occurred in our family under the old family tax benefit system. To clarify the way the system currently works: there could be two families, each with an identical household income, and one family could be eligible because the father is the primary income earner, while the other family is ineligible because the mother is the primary income earner. Under this bill, with the introduction of a family income limit, families will no longer be denied access to payments just because of the income of the mother. It is expected nearly 3,000 additional parents will become eligible each year due to this measure.</para>
<para>The bill will also put more flexibility into the paid parental leave system to allow parents to best use their parental leave payments in a manner that best suits them. Paid parental leave will consist only of flexible paid parental leave days. This measure allows parents to take parental leave in blocks as small as a day at a time, with periods of working in between, during the period that starts the day the child is born and ends the day before the child's second birthday or second anniversary of care. This flexibility seeks to support mothers to return to work whenever they wish and will benefit parents who work part time or are self-employed to continue working after a birth or adoption.</para>
<para>The bill also allows eligible parents to take a maximum of two weeks parental leave pay concurrently, assisting parents to share caring responsibilities, and providing an opportunity for dads and partners to also provide care for birth parents, to support their health. This will greatly assist all parents, but particularly parents of twins and multiple births. As the mother of twins, I particularly support this measure. The bill does limit the concurrency period, to ensure that parents are encouraged to return to work.</para>
<para>The coalition remains committed to supporting Australian women's participation in the workforce. At its highest level, the clear benefit of paid parental leave is to increase female workforce participation. However, the health benefits for mothers cannot be overestimated. It can assist with bonding with the child, breastfeeding and recovery from childbirth. Studies have also shown it can assist with lowering postnatal depression rates and improving new mums' mental health. Paid parental leave can also lower infant mortality. It ensures that women are not disadvantaged in their employment through their intrinsic role in childbearing. It supports economic security for women throughout their lives. It supports the health and welfare of mothers as well as their newborn children. It assists Australian parents to manage their work and parental responsibilities so that the needs of children and families may be met in the context of modern Australian society.</para>
<para>This amended scheme will also go some way to ensuring that working women do not unwillingly delay or avoid having children because of the financial ramifications. This scheme particularly supports first time mums through assisting childbirth recovery and perinatal and postnatal health challenges such as premature birth. Most importantly, it supports my fundamental Liberal principles that the role of government is to facilitate an environment to enable Australians to have choice and to make decisions that are right for their individual circumstances. It helps Australian women decide when they will have children.</para>
<para>I also support fathers being able to access to paid parental leave. Again, this enables Australian parents to make choices that are right for their individual, particular family circumstances. For dads it can increase their parental satisfaction, through time spent bonding with their baby. In my family, my husband, Michael, would have really benefited from and enjoyed having more time with our boys when they were very young. It also can assist to create a more equitable division of household labour—another thing that I would have appreciated 16 years ago.</para>
<para>I note that the coalition has sought assurances from the government that the amendments to increase flexibility in this bill will not negatively impact upon small businesses. At this point I will say that I commend all those Australian businesses who, over many years, have introduced their own paid parental leave and assisted many of their female employees back into the workforce. I've been advised that Services Australia will provide additional support to businesses to manage the new scheme to both minimise any economic impact and ensure that businesses are aware of the changes to the scheme well in advance of its commencement on 1 July this year.</para>
<para>I note that, in the lead-up to the budget in October last year, the government announced that this scheme would be progressively increased to 26 weeks. That measure is not in this bill, and I will welcome that legislation from the government in due course. I ask, though, that the government consider amending this bill to include superannuation guarantee payments on parental leave pay, as the scheme was initially envisaged. This will go some way to bridging the disparity between the superannuation balances of Australian men and women, where women still lag a long way behind men.</para>
<para>To conclude, this is a good bill. Paid parental leave is vital for Australian mums; it is vital for Australian dads. It is integral to women's workforce participation, for mothers' physical and mental health, and for giving fathers the opportunity to be more fully involved in their children's early care. For all of the reasons I have mentioned, I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MURPHY</name>
    <name.id>133646</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to follow the member for Hughes and find myself agreeing with everything I just heard her say. I didn't hear the start of your contribution, Member for Hughes, but I suspect I would have agreed with that as well.</para>
<para>Most of us in this chamber understand that society has changed, almost unrecognisably in some ways, over the last 30, 40 or 50 years in the way women now expect to be able to live their lives and the things that we expect to be able to achieve. I actually can't believe it, but I'm turning 50 this year. I think of my mother's experience, as someone who was a teacher, when she had me, and the experience of professional women now when they have children. The changes that have happened over that 50-year period are remarkable and so positive. My mother found it very hard to go back to teaching after having had me, because she didn't get the support at the school for the flexibility that she needed to be able to have a young child and work full time. We would find it extraordinary these days for that to be acceptable, particularly in a public school system.</para>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 takes us another step towards achieving the sort of society that we want to be a part of. That is—for many of us in this place, and for almost everyone I know in my community—a society where men and women are able to equally share the joys and the burdens of child care, particularly in the early years after they've had children.</para>
<para>For too long now, the structure of workplaces, the culture in Australia and the expectations have made it incredibly difficult for men who want to be at home and be part of the early weeks, months and years of their children's lives to do that. As women we often, rightly, talk about how important it is to have paid parental leave provisions for women and to support women to get back into the workforce, and all the benefits individually for women, for businesses, for the economy and, quite frankly, for children, of being able to see women go back into the workplace after having children.</para>
<para>Possibly we should also talk more about how important it is to encourage and facilitate men to take on more of that childcaring role earlier in their children's lives and to help men who want to do it to do it. That's why, in particular, the 'use it or lose it' provision in this legislation for two weeks of paid parental leave is an important step towards being able to do that. We know, and others in this place have said it—there's nothing new or remarkable in what I'm saying—that the research shows that if men spend more time with their children in the time immediately after birth then they are also more likely to be more involved in their children's lives as they grow up. We know the benefit to children of having that relationship with their fathers. And we of course know the benefit to women—yes, it's generally women—of having a male partner who is more involved in their children's lives and also takes on more of the unpaid work associated with having a family. We also know from all the census data that women still do a disproportionate amount of unpaid work around the home, often no matter how progressive that household is and no matter how much the man and the woman in that household both want to be equal and share the burden. Again, culture, workplaces and a lack of opportunity for men to be more involved play into that unequal burden.</para>
<para>So I'm really pleased with this legislation and everything that speakers before me have said it will achieve for families, for productivity and for children. It is an important first step in what the Albanese government wants to achieve and that push towards 26 weeks of paid parental leave—and looking forward to the recommendations of the Women's Economic Taskforce about what some of the provisions should be in that legislation.</para>
<para>After what I've just said, it will surprise no-one to hear that I think we can also do better in terms of the 'use it or lose it' provisions. Of course, there are very difficult decisions to be made about the costs of progressive reforms in the economic sense and the benefits of them. And we can't always bring in, and bring in quickly, the extent of reform that some of us would like to see. But there are other countries in the world that have a standard in paid parental leave that I believe we should be looking to for the future and aspiring to. We could look to Sweden, which, as I understand it, provides 480 days of paid leave to parents, 90 of which are reserved for fathers on that 'use it or lose it' basis. Iceland has 12 months of leave, at 80 per cent of total salary, which can be shared between parents. That's a pretty expensive scheme, it must be said. But there are a number of countries around the world that have and that are looking at looking at extended 'use it or lose it' provisions and can point to a change in the culture in their countries as a result of introducing the provisions. They can point to changes in data saying that men very rarely took paid parental leave or were involved in the early years of their children's lives before the introduction of 'use it or lose it' provisions in paid parental leave, and now it's becoming a societal norm.</para>
<para>My contribution on this legislation is to say that it is absolutely terrific, and I am very proud to be part of a government that is introducing it, but to also say that that norm, where both men and women can be part of the early years of their children's lives and can make a decision between them about how that is balanced, is the norm we should be aspiring to in this country. It will go a long way towards the gender equality that everyone in this chamber wants to see achieved.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When it comes to firm, consistent and unwavering support for hardworking Australians and young families, there is no better record of decisive action by government in this place than the record of the coalition. The amendments in the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 build on comprehensive changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme that were first announced by the coalition in the March 2022 budget. These changes, first proposed by the coalition, were part of an enhanced Paid Parental Leave package of reforms that were very well received by commentators, key stakeholders and Australian working families less than a year ago. I had many in my electorate react positively to these changes when announced last year by the coalition government, and I'm pleased that the current Labor government have progressed these positive reforms.</para>
<para>Many local families who I've met with on my travels throughout the electorate have talked to me about the Paid Parental Leave scheme and the potential changes. I've met with many families who have benefited from the scheme. I've had two kids while the scheme has been in place, and my family have certainly benefited from it. But I've also had many constituents who've reported to me the flaws in the current scheme: the inflexibility of the income test; the challenges of the scheme in situations where the mother is the higher income earner in the household; the challenges of sharing the leave between parents; and, of course, how quickly those 18 weeks go.</para>
<para>It is important to make the point that the coalition's enhanced Paid Parental Leave package of reforms is now mirrored in almost identical measures in this bill. These measures include the creation of a single 20-week payment under the PPL scheme by combining up to 18 weeks of parental leave pay with a further two weeks of dad and partner pay and the introduction of a combined family income limit of $350,000 in adjusted taxable income in addition to the existing individual income limit of $156,647, which was due to apply from 1 July 2022. This is incredibly important. Households should be treated fairly based on their combined wage, and the federal government should be using combined household income as the basis for assessments for a lot more of the initiatives that the federal government undertakes throughout this country. I could talk more about how we can make vast improvements to the inequity in the tax system by going down this path, a path that would be way better for families, but I'll save that debate for another time.</para>
<para>Other measures in this bill that reflect the coalition's enhanced Paid Parental Leave changes include increasing the flexibility of the parental leave pay so the entire entitlement may be taken in blocks as small as a single day, with periods of paid work in between, if within two years of birth or adoption. Again, this is about more flexibility. That can only be a good thing, and that's certainly something that the young parents in my electorate have been calling for. I think it's fantastic that it's going to form part of this bill. Enhanced Paid Parental Leave would have seen an investment of $346.1 million over five years to expand PPL, giving working families full choice and control over how they use the 20 weeks of taxpayer funded paid parental leave.</para>
<para>But the coalition's record of supporting government funded paid parental leave goes back a long, long way, well before these reforms. In both the 2010 and 2013 elections, the coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver mothers six months paid parental leave based on their actual wage. If those opposite, who today have been very self-satisfied in getting this bill this far, had supported that landmark coalition policy way back in 2010, then Australian families would have had access to one of the most generous government funded paid parental leave schemes in the world, a scheme that would now have been in place for well over a decade. Think how many Australian families could have been positively impacted by that coalition policy over the last decade. Think how many Australian women could have benefited from that policy.</para>
<para>The coalition, better than anyone else in this place, recognises both the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave. The coalition has always been—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is, unfortunately, interrupted in accordance with standing order 143. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will be granted leave to continue his remarks, should he require.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>48</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petition: Migration</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to present to the House petition EN4579. This is a petition of 804 Australians who are asking the House to make special provisions for Bangladeshi low-skilled workers to be recruited by Australian government agencies to fill skills shortages in rural Australia as agricultural workers, fruit pickers and low-skilled city professions on temporary work visas.</para>
<para>This issue goes, of course, to the labour shortage that Australia is facing, the regional shortages that we've seen across Australia. In government the coalition proposed the ag visa. This was an innovative visa attempt to show that we could bring in low-skilled workers to fill regional and rural shortages, similar to the PALM scheme, which the coalition created and which has been so successful for Pacific workers. The ag visa was a real policy reform that would have delivered answers and solutions to people in regional Australia, to our productive sectors that are desperate because of these labour shortages.</para>
<para>This petition is from Australians of Bangladeshi descent who know that there are pools of workers in the South-East Asian region—fantastic countries, fantastic people—willing to come here and do this work and fill this labour shortage for great wages. This is an important petition for the House. The government should really look at the decision not to proceed with the ag visa. It is a vital piece of economic reform to make sure that we can get and fill and address a critical economic gap in our rural areas and our regions. This petition shows there is huge support in Australia for these visas.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The petition read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">There are global competition for law abiding Low Skill Agricultural workers and Bangladeshi Low Skilled Workers has proven their usefulness in Europe and Middle East as Obedient and law abiding hard working people. As a results Greece is also recruiting Thousands of Bangladeshi Agricultural Workers as Fruit Pickers for 5 years temporary migrant visa extendable to permanent residency after the 5 years periods. I believe if Australian Government recruit Bangladeshi Low Skilled Workers through its own agency as it was done by UK Consulate in 1960-1970 from Bangladesh they will help to fill the gap of the necessary skill shortage in Rural Australia and in cities for cleaning and other low skilled professions. https://www.adelaide.edu.au/stretton/news/list/2021/10/21/a-global-battle-for-low-skilled-workers-looms-after-covid-australia-needs-to "Fifteen to eighteen thousand of our people will be regularised and 4,000 fresh agricultural workers will be recruited from Bangladesh every year under this framework" he mentioned. https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/national/greece-to-hire-bangladeshi-farm-hands-1658633842 Greece to hire Bangladeshi farm hands FE REPORT | Published: July 24, 2022 09:37:22 The Greek Parliament has approved a deal signed between Bangladesh and Greece paving the way for recruiting 4,000 agricultural workers annually, the foreign ministry said on Friday. It will also help regularise nearly 18 thousand Bangladeshis staying in the southeast European country.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We therefore ask the House to make special provisions for Bangladeshi Low Skilled Workers to be recruited by Australian government agencies to fill the skill shortages in Rural Australia as agricultural workers, Fruit Pickers and Low skilled city professions on a temporary workers visa. This will open a huge source of Low skilled workers.</para></quote>
<para>from 804 citizens (Petition No. EN4579)</para>
<para>Petition received.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Turkiye and Syria: Earthquake</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the devastating tragedy that has taken place in Turkiye and Syria. Amidst the devastation, the images coming through are absolutely heartbreaking. The latest death toll from Monday's catastrophic earthquake has passed 7,800 people, with the toll expected to rise considerably. Members of my local community, including those I know well, have lost direct family members and loved ones. The community has rallied strongly, with local organisations, mosque and businesses stepping up to support with efforts to assist with the unfolding humanitarian crisis. We are seeing shipping containers and trucks arriving from interstate into my electorate to be received and filled by generous donations and supplies from within our community. As part of the government, I thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for yesterday's announcement of an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance to those affected.</para>
<para>I join with my community in mourning relatives and loved ones who were lost and impacted by this tragedy. There will be prayers this Friday at the Meadow Heights mosque and other places across the electorate, and I hope to be able to attend in solidarity and support. Just as the local community response has been remarkable and a measure of the human spirit, I have no doubt that the resilience of the people of Turkiye and Syria will be what defines this humanitarian crisis.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Page Electorate: Shine Awards</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge a wonderful woman in my community, Bianca Tarrant, who recently won a 2022 Shine award in the Belief category. The awards celebrate rural Australian women making a difference. Through her business, Our Cow, Bianca and her partner, David McGiveron, changed the Australian livestock industry with their innovative practices. Several years ago, with drought and bushfires, plus having no control over the pricing of their cattle, Bianca decided to sell their cattle meat on online. Suddenly demand exceeded supply, so Bianca asked neighbouring farms to assist. Now over 150 farms from New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria supply free-range and organic lamb, chicken and pork to Our Cow, and the business employs 53 people. Congratulations, Bianca, on your award.</para>
<para>I'd also like to acknowledge Naomi Moran, who won a Shine award in the Spirit category. The awards separate rural Australian women making a difference. When floods swept through Lismore in 2022, Naomi, the general manager of the national Indigenous publication the <inline font-style="italic">Koori Mail</inline>, took the decision to suspend the publication to concentrate on community aid and setting up a community hub. This hub distributed food, supplies, tools, equipment and wellbeing support. Their kitchen was providing up to a thousand meals a day. Congratulations on your award and thank you, Naomi. Also a special shout-out to Amarina Toby, Monica Laurie, Nicole Roberts, Jacquie Laurie, Rose Walker, Melissa Ladkin, Kirilly Dawn and Ella Bancroft and all the other volunteers— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Richardson, Mr Paul</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to pay tribute and express my condolences on the death of Paul Richardson, who served as a director in the United Workers Union and as assistant national secretary of the National Union of Workers. I worked with Paul and admired him. I admired Paul's commitment to the labour movement, his fierce intellect, his gruffness, his generosity and his terrific sense of humour. I admired the way Paul demonstrated discipline and professionalism but also fostered a sense of fun and family in the union. Paul's sharp mind and his incredible, phenomenal attention to detail were practically superhuman, and his powerful skills made him an outstanding advocate for workers, as well as a very important addition to the Victorian Labor Party's rules committee.</para>
<para>Paul loved his wife, Susie, and daughter, Katya, and my sympathies are with them, his family, his friends and the many union members and colleagues who knew him. Paul's funeral was standing room only, with mourners spilling out of the chapel. He was so loved, respected and admired, and he will be very sorely missed. Thank you, Paul, for you did for working people in this country. You will be missed, and you will be remembered.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>WorldPride</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SPENDER</name>
    <name.id>286042</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's really exciting that in just 10 days time, Sydney will be the first city in the southern hemisphere to host WorldPride. This is an incredible opportunity to celebrate our amazing LGBTQ community in a city renowned for its diversity, inclusivity and our proud LGBTQ population, many of whom live and work in Wentworth. I'm so proud to represent such a diverse and inclusive electorate, and it's amazing to see how our community is embracing the spirit of WorldPride so thoroughly. From North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club's new rainbow surfboards to a variety of local council events, art exhibitions and family activities, there is so much going on. I am so delighted that members of Wentworth's LGBTQ community will be joining me on the Independents for Inclusion float at the 45th Mardi Gras parade.</para>
<para>I also want to take this opportunity to highlight a very special project opening in Darlinghurst this month, just over the border from Wentworth, Qtopia, which will be Sydney's first queer museum. Originally conceived by a leading HIV researcher, the late Professor David Cooper, Qtopia will highlight the brave stories and resilience of Sydney's LGBTQ community. It's a long-overdue addition to our city's history, and I can't wait to visit.</para>
<para>WorldPride is a chance for us to be proud of how far we have come, but it's also a reminder of how much work we still have to do to support and protect our LGBTQ community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Spence Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I, like most members in this place, celebrated Australia Day with local communities in my electorate. For many of us, like me, this was our first Australia Day as a local member. I had the privilege of attending events and ceremonies held by the Town of Gawler, where I gave the Australia Day breakfast address, along with ceremonies held by the City of Salisbury and City of Playford. With events running from 7 am to 4 pm, it was quite the day.</para>
<para>I'd like to acknowledge some of the councils' award winners, for this is a time to recognise the quiet achievements and contributions of many unsung heroes in our community of Spence. I'd like to give particular praise to Georgi Thomas from the Mustard Seed Family Project and Joe Kielnerowski, the City of Salisbury and City of Playford's citizens of the year respectively. Also to Neil Sanders and Jules Reid from Gawler Parkrun, who jointly hold the title of Citizen of the Year for the Town of Gawler.</para>
<para>I'd like to give honourable mentions to some other award winners: Nathan Coppick, Seth Powell, Cheryl Drury, Jack Gill, Gayle Joyce, Madeline Prince, Geoff Meikle, Qasem Bahmanzadah, Nomiki Thomas, and Alex Coates from the Lions Club of Salisbury. Congratulations and thank you for making our local community, the electorate of Spence, just that little bit better.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms DANIEL</name>
    <name.id>008CH</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The NDIS and its mind-boggling bureaucracy dominates the lives of many members of the Goldstein community. Reapplying for packages and finding the right care have combined to become a full-time job for carers and people with disabilities trying to engage with the system. Therefore, I was pleased that the Minister for the NDIS and Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, took the time last week to visit Goldstein to participate in a public forum to engage directly with our community. As the minister told the full room, there is an NDIS review underway that will report towards the end of the year, but feedback received now can be folded into the system. Through this direct engagement the system will be improved—it must be—and only then will support for what is a costly but much needed service be maintained.</para>
<para>The minister also join me in a session with JAM music therapy, which supports people with neurodevelopmental disabilities making music together. Unlike most allied health professionals, music therapists are subject to GST under the NDIS, which cuts into users' funds. This, I would argue, should change. It was appreciated by all the participants that the minister took the time to implement change based on their real-world experience. Thanks to all those who came.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pearce Electorate: Shree Kutchi Leva Patel Community</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROBERTS</name>
    <name.id>157125</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to reflect on a generous and kind-hearted community organisation that is very active in the electorate of Pearce. The group is the Shree Kutchi Leva Patel Community, affectionately known as SKLPCWA.</para>
<para>This year marks a very special anniversary for the community, which is celebrating its 20th year—an important and impressive milestone. I was honoured to attend their 20th anniversary event over the weekend, and the SKLPCWA is all about heart and the human connection. This care for others is what makes community. It is particularly important in an electorate as diverse as Pearce, where 42 per cent of our community were born overseas. We have a wonderful mix of cultures in our electorate.</para>
<para>This organisation aims to provide opportunities to develop social values for the benefit of community through culture, sport, education and social activities. One example is raising money to provide wheelchairs for those who need them, and 340 wheelchairs in a shipping container were sent to a special school in Mombasa. This community generosity, in conjunction with the well-known Wheelchair for Kids, a volunteer based not-for-profit organisation, shows the heart of SKLPCWA. The community also helps young students by providing tutoring and support for students to achieve their best results. I congratulate the community group for their two decades of service to others, and I know it will continue. I wish them well. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Rugby League</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Actor Kevin Costner famously said, 'Build it and they will come.' Here we are on the eve of what is set to be a great first season for our newest National Rugby League team, the Dolphins, backed by a strong line-up that has attracted new supporters all over Queensland. Led by legendary supercoach Wayne Bennett, the 2023 NRL season is set to be a truly exciting round of sporting skill and mastery.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank the Dolphins for the invitation to their inaugural season launch last week. It was a fantastic night. It was great to see the men pumped up and itching to get on the field for their first official match against the Sydney Roosters on 5 March. I had the opportunity to meet the team's captain, Jesse Bromwich, who's a prop for the Dolphins. He's a great leader.</para>
<para>A total of $8 million was invested by the former coalition government to build a world-class facility at the heart of the peninsula that is being utilised by many in the community. This was Dolphins stadium. We built it, and now they're in the NRL. We've had games there, including the Brisbane Roar A-League games, women's matches and so many other matches that have brought people into the community, into South-East Queensland. I'm immensely proud to stand here today and reflect on the sheer power of what started as a grassroots campaign back in 2015 to see the dolphins in the NRL. Our region will go from strength to strength.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Haemochromatosis</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night I met with Haemochromatosis Australia at the invitation of Boothby resident Matthew Howie, who I met while I was doorknocking last year. Haemochromatosis is an inherited disease which essentially means that people have too much iron in their system. One in 200 Australians have the genetic predisposition to develop it. Excess iron is stored in the organs and joints, and leads to very non-specific symptoms such as fatigue and joint pain. This leads to delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis. However, early detection and treatment is vital as leaving it untreated can lead to cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer, diabetes, heart disease and early death. Treatment is as easy as giving blood regularly.</para>
<para>Professor John Olynyk, a consultant gastroenterologist and hepatologist at the Fiona Stanley Hospital, told us that haemochromatosis costs the Australian health system over $280 million per year, and that alternate pathways to diagnosis, including screening of at-risk individuals, has the potential to save the Medicare system significant amounts of money and provide a better population based outcome. I was pleased to hear that the haemochromatosis treatment pathway has been developed in many states and is under development in my home state of South Australia. Prevention and early intervention is always cheaper and more effective than treating the complex conditions that a disease such as this can cause.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Constitution</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to say that if you're born in Tamworth in a hospital bed next to someone else, another child who has been born, then you would expect that both of you would have the same rights. You both go back to the same town and live in houses next door to one another. But this proposed constitutional change, the so-called voice, says that one person is endowed by the Constitution with a greater proportion of rights than the person born in the bed beside them. This is something I think should be inalienable. It's an anathema that we should be defining people in our Constitution on the premise of race, religion or creed.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Even now, we're being interrupted. It is an issue that also pertains to what we actually say to the people who live in one house next door to another one. We can say to them, 'You have access to this democratic right, which that person doesn't have.' How do we explain that? I live in an electorate with the sixth-largest Indigenous population in Australia. We also note that it's a swindle—the idea that they will incorporate the voice although they don't actually tell us what the voice is. The voice inevitably, when it goes to the Constitution, will be interpreted by the High Court, and this will lead to a plethora of cases where so many people will have standing and the capacity to challenge things. It will be a case that divides Australia up. It is something that is a swindle, because, unless the Labor Party is truthful, they are not being— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rodwell, Mr Thomas, Rodwell, Mrs June</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I'm going to tell you all a story about love. I rise to acknowledge two beautiful community members, Mr Thomas and Mrs June Rodwell of Niagara Park in my electorate of Robertson—a beautiful couple. Mr and Mrs Rodwell celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary on 17 June 2023, and I was fortunate enough to call in and congratulate them on this milestone. It was a delight to be able meet with Mr and Mrs Rodwell and listen to their amazing stories about how they met and the many highlights they have shared together throughout their lives.</para>
<para>Mr and Mrs Rodwell met in Cooma and married in 1953. The couple have raised two children together and have enjoyed a pleasant life on the New South Wales Central Coast. Both told me that they are avid AFL fans and regularly dance together. Mr Rodwell imparted some advice for longevity in marriage and said, 'Those that do things together stay together.' Mrs Rodwell said, 'Be understanding and be kind to each other.' To Mr and Mrs Rodwell, again: a very big congratulations on your 70 years of marriage, and my best wishes for the future.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I recently met with little Mila, who has cystic fibrosis, and her parents, Jaimee and Mitchell, to discuss the urgent need for Trikafta to be added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Every day, Mila battles this devastating illness through multiple medications and physiotherapy treatments. Yet there is hope for Mila and many other children like her who suffer daily. Trikafta is a miracle drug that can prevent further deterioration of the lungs and airways, limiting the damage on the body. Last year, the coalition government recognised the critical need to add Trikafta to the PBS and made it available for those aged 12 and over. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee approved Trikafta for use for children between the ages of six and 11 before Christmas last year. Unfortunately, this has not turned out to be the Christmas present families were hoping for. Two months have gone by, and the bureaucratic red tape is delaying access to this treatment, with costs of over $250,000 a year to access Trikafta. This leaves the medication out of reach for most children.</para>
<para>Once this medication is on the PBS, 90 per cent of those suffering from cystic fibrosis can be treated. These children don't have the luxury of time on their side. The sooner it is placed on the PBS, the sooner the life-altering conditions associated with cystic fibrosis can be halted. This needs to be done urgently so children like Mila can look forward to a long and healthy life.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Law Enforcement: Racially Motivated Violence</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What makes us proud to call this country home is our continuous affirmation of a shared commitment towards respecting Australia, Australians, Australian institutions and Australian values regardless of our diverse backgrounds. The diversity of this country makes Australia a much more wonderful place to live. Our unity in diversity continues to be among our greatest strengths. It grows stronger when we stand together in unity and compassion against all forms of hate and violence.</para>
<para>Australians are bestowed with several freedoms, including speech, religion and peaceful protest. With these freedoms come a set of important responsibilities. I believe the most important of these is our responsibility to respect each other, to use peaceful means to abide by the law and to live in harmony.</para>
<para>The vandalism of places of worship and the incidence of violence we've seen in the last two weeks in Melbourne is completely unacceptable in our multicultural and multifaith society. This government stands firmly against violence and vandalism of any kind. I am pleased with the Victoria Police's response and fully support their investigation into these hateful acts. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Cultural Policy</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As a great supporter of the arts and in the wake of the government's new National Cultural Policy, I want to speak about how regional arts are so often delivered. It's mostly done by locals and wonderfully creative and artistic people like Jamie Lea. Jamie is a young woman in my electorate who, from the age of 15, has had a hand in so many musical, cultural and art events in the region.</para>
<para>One of her signature events is the Secret Garden Gig. I've hosted and played at one such event. I did a version of Radiohead's 'Subterranean Homesick Allen', for those who are interested. Another event was in a disused quarry in a choir singing 'Solid Rock' by Goanna in front of a sheer cliff of solid rock, celebrating a real spirit of place. This is what Jamie does. She brings people together and gives a platform to artists. She does this because she loves what she calls her 'village', Greater Shepparton, the place that raised and nurtured her. And what an amazing dividend the village got—a highly energetic champion of the arts who lifts so many people up through an opportunity to perform.</para>
<para>We are told the National Cultural Policy includes more funding for the regional arts. I hope it does. I hope it facilitates more work from people like Jamie Lea, people who have the capacity and commitment to bring arts and culture to their village and continue to inspire their communities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Capital Territory Bushfires: 20th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Three weeks ago, the Canberra community observed the 20th anniversary of the devastating 2023 Canberra fires. Hundreds of homes were destroyed. Sadly, it claimed the lives of four Bean locals: Dorothy McGrath, Alison Tener, Peter Brooke and Doug Fraser.</para>
<para>It initially started as four separate fires, then, fusing together, it created something that we as a city had not faced before. Its ferociousness caught everyone by surprise. With cyclone-strength winds and fire tornadoes, it was a firestorm. At the height of this crisis, our city's brave first responders rose to the challenge. ACT police were assisting with evacuations, ACT and New South Wales fire crews were in Morant Circuit in Kambah working to save houses and ACT paramedics were on the streets conducting welfare checks for those who stayed to defend their property. I remember that day well. I remember coming over the crest of Hindmarsh Drive towards the Woden Valley, to a sky that was black and orange, on the way to assist my parents in Farrer.</para>
<para>My electorate of Bean covers areas that were affected, particularly in Duffy, Holder, Chapman, Kambah and Uriarra. It does not take long for me to run into a resident that was affected by the 2003 bushfires. Lessons were learned, and the ACT now stands ready to deliver the best response for future fires. I would encourage Canberrans and colleagues to take some time to visit the ACT bushfire memorial at Stromlo Forest Park to remember those lives lost and houses damaged.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gould, Mrs Patricia, OAM</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to honour the life of an extraordinary woman. Patricia Gould, from Albury, died aged 87 years 10 days ago. There are not many people who spend their final days living directly opposite a green space and family playground named in their honour.</para>
<para>Patricia, or Pat, was awarded an OAM in 2004 among a range of honours during 43 years of service to local government. By then, she hadn't even finished as one of Australia's longest serving female councillors, including seven terms as mayor, before retiring in 2016.</para>
<para>But Pat was much more than accumulating plaques and milestones. At her heart, she was a caring wife to husband, Noel, and mother to five sons. As the family grew and left the nest, by her own recollection, Pat would eventually assist no fewer than 73 community groups and organisations. Among her proudest accomplishments was establishing Albury's Family Day Care program and the inception of the Upper Murray Regional Library.</para>
<para>Through her life, Pat had an unwavering affection and devotion to both her city and her family, delivered with poise and decency. Kylie King, Albury's current mayor, had this tribute:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Our beautiful city would simply not be what it is today without Patricia's leadership, determination and forward thinking, and we as a community have much to be thankful for.</para></quote>
<para>Leaving behind her children and their wives, nine grandchildren and a great-grandson, Patricia Gould's funeral will be held in Albury tomorrow. May she rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coalition Government</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For almost a decade, under those opposite, life got tough for the people I represent in the fastest-growing community in this country. My community is characterised by people seeking affordable housing from low- and middle-income brackets. Imagine my surprise when I read the headline this morning that said the Leader of the Opposition declared himself and the Liberal Party the party for the working class. Imagine!</para>
<para>This is from the party whose robodebt scheme targeted low- and middle-income earners—lots of people in my community—with debt notices for times they accessed our financial safety net. Imagine my surprise. The former health minister was responsible for a Medicare freeze and for programs where my community was cut and GP clinics couldn't attract new GPs. Imagine my surprise. This is from the leader of the party that is voting against a safeguard mechanism that will support households in my electorate with energy bills. Imagine my surprise.</para>
<para>In contrast: cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, fee-free TAFE and boosting wages for low-income earners.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Heart Disease</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's likely that today in my electorate around 4,000 people are directly impacted by an illness that's limiting the quality of their life could easily lead to their death within a few years. It's also likely many of them are not aware. That illness is heart valve disease, or severe aortic stenosis, caused when the valves calcify so that they don't close properly. Left untreated, it can lead to heart failure and even death. Calcifying of the arteries can happen to anyone, regardless of diet, and the symptoms—shortness of breath and fatigue—are very often misattributed to getting older. The survival rate, if left untreated, is worse than that of breast cancer.</para>
<para>The good news is that the treatments for severe aortic stenosis are very effective. Transcatheter aortic valve implementation is a procedure where a catheter is placed in an artery in the groin and guided into the heart. The patient is awake during the procedure and does not require intensive care admission or cardiac rehabilitation, and they can return home within 48 hours. I recently met with Amy Davis, from my electorate, to talk about the work Edwards Lifesciences are doing in this area.</para>
<para>The coalition made heart health checks with full Medicare reimbursements part of the MBS in 2019, and this should continue. Having a doctor listen to your heart with a stethoscope should be part of a standard GP visit. I encourage anyone over the age of 65 and anyone with symptoms to speak with their doctor about having a heart health check. A simple listen to your heart by your GP could actually save your life.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was my pleasure recently to attend Lunar New Year celebrations at the Mingyue Lay Temple conducted by the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society. I was warmly welcomed by chairman James Chan and president Vincent Kong at the event. I appreciate the organisation of so many volunteers who ensure that this event runs smoothly every year.</para>
<para>The Australian Chinese Buddhist Society supports the local community and has been at the forefront of organising significant donations for flood and bushfire victims. The temple is one of the largest in the southern hemisphere. I was joined by a number of community leaders who spoke of how the community values the temple. It was wonderful to have the member for Reid at the celebration, and I thank her and her mum for her insights of worshipping at the temple as a child and important events in her family's life.</para>
<para>The event was the seventh day of the Lunar New Year, known as the universal birthday. The rabbit symbolises mercy, elegance and beauty, and is the luckiest of the 12 animals. People born in the Year of the Rabbit are calm and peaceful. Thank you again for your hospitality. I wish all of those in my community celebrating a happy Lunar New Year.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>54</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call on questions, I'd like to inform the House that seated in the distinguished visitors gallery today are His Excellency General Taur Matan Ruak, the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Adaljiza Magno, and Her Excellency Ines de Almeida, the Ambassador of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. A very warm welcome to you all.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is my pleasure to also welcome Prime Minister Taur Matan Ruak to the Australian Parliament. I thank the Prime Minister for his personal support for the important partnership between Australia and Timor-Leste. Timor-Leste and Australia are more than just near neighbours; we share a strong and a vibrant friendship. This relationship was forged during World War II when the people of Timor-Leste saved many Australian lives at great cost to themselves. One of those lives that they saved was my mentor Tom Uren who was captured on Timor along with other members of the Sparrow Force and other forces that were there during World War II. The Timorese literally put their lives on the line to save Australian lives. I know that, at the memorial at Marrickville Park in my electorate, there's a tribute to the courage of the Timorese.</para>
<para>Our friendship has grown even stronger in the decade since, particularly since independence. In 2019 I was very honoured to visit Dili with then Prime Minister Morrison for the 20th anniversary of the independence referendum. It took enormous sacrifices for Timor-Leste to achieve its sovereignty, and I want to acknowledge that today as well as the efforts by leaders since then to make democracy work. Today, with this visit, the Prime Minister and I reaffirmed the bond between our nations and our commitment to deepening it further. We have discussed defence and economic cooperation, labour mobility and our joint commitment to security and prosperity of the region. We know that important projects, including the Greater Sunrise project that we discussed today and I discussed with Woodside last week when I was in Perth, are important for the future development of Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>I am incredibly optimistic about our future. Timor-Leste has a lot of friends in Australia, and everyone in this chamber can be counted upon as part of that. Again, I thank you, Prime Minister, for bringing your delegation here today. You are very, very welcome.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To the Prime Minister, His Excellency General Taur Matan Ruak, thank you very much for being here today with your Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Her Excellency Adaljiza Magno, and the ambassador. The three of you are most welcome guests, and on behalf of the coalition it's a great honour to have you in the chamber with us today.</para>
<para>In his memoir, the Hon. Sir Peter Cosgrove reflected on his time commanding the multinational peacekeeping forces in East Timor. He spoke of the stoicism, of the cohesion and of the energy of your national community, of the hardy nature of your people, of the generosity of spirit that exists in the hearts of East Timorese. Our two countries' relationship is characterised by a deep and abiding friendship, a friendship forged by our interlocked histories, our shared neighbourhood in and peaceful outlook for the region, and the mutual respect which exists between our people.</para>
<para>Prime Minister Ruak, in 2007 Australian Prime Minister John Howard wrote about the difficult and demanding task which faced your people in building a sustainable, democratic and prosperous future. It is something you know more than most, as a former freedom fighter, chief of defence force, human rights award recipient and president of your country. Sixteen years on from then Prime Minister Howard's remarks, Australians look on with admiration at what East Timorese have accomplished. Our two countries today are dear friends, and we share a very strong future as friends and as partners.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>55</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Turkiye: Earthquake</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please update the House on the earthquake in Turkiye and Syria and what the Australian government is doing in response?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and for his support for the government action up to this point, and I welcome the Turkish ambassador, His Excellency Ufuk Gezer, here in the gallery this afternoon.</para>
<para>On behalf of the government, the parliament and the people of Australia, I extend my deepest condolences to all those affected by the devastating earthquakes and aftershocks in Turkiye, in Syria and in neighbouring countries. Our hearts are heavy. It is impossible to look away from the terrible and heartbreaking scenes of loss. There's a terrible scale to the devastation—whole blocks levelled and buried—but the real devastation, of course, is for people. There are the small images of unimaginable pain: a parent searching desperately for a child, a newborn girl rescued from the rubble, whose mother will never hold her in her arms. This is a disaster that at first seemed so vast as to almost be beyond comprehension, but every tragedy is happening on a very human scale—every loss, every moment of grief, fear and desperation. We know that at least 4½ thousand lives have been lost. We know those figures will continue to rise. Many more than that have been injured. So many Australians have families in Turkiye and Syria and the region, and I can only imagine the depth of their anxiety as they await news.</para>
<para>Our immediate priority is the safety of Australian citizens and permanent residents affected by the earthquakes. Our embassies in Ankara, Istanbul and Beirut are assisting Australians in these areas. I'm pleased to confirm that Australia will deploy an urban search and rescue team of up to 72 personnel to Turkiye to assist local authorities. These urban search and rescue specialists are highly trained to locate, deliver medical assistance to and remove victims who have been trapped or impacted by a structural collapse. Our National Emergency Management Agency, or NEMA, is working closely with Fire and Rescue NSW, DFAT and the ADF to coordinate the deployment as soon as possible, with an aim to have people on the ground by the end of this week. I want to thank the personnel and their families in advance once again. They're willing to support people wherever support is needed, and I'm sure I speak for all Australians when I wish them all a safe journey.</para>
<para>We're also providing an initial $10 million in humanitarian assistance to trusted partners in the region, and I thank the parliament for its bipartisan support for that commitment. This will support the delivery of food, shelter and other essential supplies. I know many Australians will want to help too. The most effective way is to donate to one of the Australian non-government organisations, such as the Red Cross, who are appealing for support.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On indulgence, I want to say thank you very much to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Defence and others within the National Security Committee of cabinet who would have contemplated these images and taken the advice from our authorities.</para>
<para>Australians can see, in their government and in their opposition, an absolute bipartisan position in providing support where it's needed to friends in their hour of need. It's been the history of our country—a very proud history—that we've been able to step up, through the systems, the training and the expertise that we've developed over a long period of time, to lend a helpful hand to people in efforts to recover from devastation. We especially think, at the moment, of Australians who may have been caught up in this disaster and, of course, as the Prime Minister points out, families and friends of Australians who have been affected. Thousands have been killed. The Prime Minister mentioned a figure before. I read online earlier that there are perhaps more than 7,000 people—we just don't know, but an unimaginable number of people. Their homes and essential infrastructure are in ruins, ancient historical sites have been damaged or destroyed, and, as is the case with such disasters, only in the coming days, weeks and months will a clearer picture emerge of the number of people who have lost their lives.</para>
<para>I saw a very confronting image online, earlier, of a man who was holding the hand of his 15-year-old daughter, still lying on her bed but crushed by a slab of concrete. Mesut Hancer was his name, and his 15-year-old daughter, Irmak, lay there deceased—he not flinching nor prepared to leave the scene until she could be recovered. There was another confronting scene of a man standing up against a wall of rubble; within his hands he held simply a sledgehammer, facing a task that would take an excavator and machinery weeks to deal with, and yet he wanted to do what he could by his family.</para>
<para>Those scenes and those names, whilst they're a far distance from our shore, should not be forgotten or drift from our minds. If there is more that the Austrian government is called upon to do, and sees fit to do, then the coalition will provide the support, Prime Minister. The pace at which the government has responded is to be acknowledged and recognised. When you talk about an earthquake of this magnitude, 7.8, and the circumstances that we've outlined, it is phenomenal. We have an obligation to support our friends around the world. The work DFAT does in keeping Australians, here, informed of their loved ones overseas shouldn't be underestimated at a time when there's great anxiety for many, many Australians. We stand united with the government in providing that support.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cost of Living</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Changing pace slightly, I'm sorry, my question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election, this Prime Minister promised that families will be better off under a Labor government, yet there is no relief in sight and, under Labor, families are worse off day by day. There have been eight successive rate rises under this Prime Minister, mortgage repayments have increased by $1,400 for a typical Australian family since Labor was elected, and the Prime Minister has not outlined a plan to deal with rising inflation. I ask the Prime Minister: when will he prioritise Australian families and small businesses, and help them with the cost-of-living crisis they are facing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We prioritise supporting families and small business every day. Those opposite come in here and vote against relief for families and small business every day. Last December, they came in here and voted against a $1½ billion package—they voted against it. They raise inflation. Here's what the bloke opposite had to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… nobody wants to see interest rates go up, but it's a reality of a world where there's inflation. I think Australians understand that … there's a lot of pressure—upward pressure—on interest rates at the moment.</para></quote>
<para>That's what he had to say as a minister in the Morrison government when interest rates started going up. And the shadow Treasurer barks across the chamber, but he said at the same time, 'We're facing circumstances in what's happening in the Ukraine and Russia that were not expected and very hard to predict. These pressures are driven by extenuating circumstances.'</para>
<para>Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They come in here and they have no actual constructive plans to put forward. They come in here and they vote against our energy price relief plan. They vote against free TAFE; they voted against the electric vehicle discount; they vote against wages going up. The people who speak about people under pressure—do you remember during the election campaign?—said that a $1 an hour increase was going to wreck the economy. It was reckless; it was responsible. Those opposite say no to price caps from big energy companies. They say no to price caps, and they say no to $1½ billion in direct bill relief. And, of course, they won't ever take serious action when it comes to dealing with these issues, but I say to them, 'If you just get out of the way when people do have positive suggestions and plans such as we are already implementing to address the cost-of-living pressures which are out there.'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There's far too much noise on my left and right. When the House comes to order and there is complete silence, I will give the call to the member for Makin.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Procurement</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. How has the Albanese Labor government changed previous practices in order to prioritise delivering key procurements and projects with local industry to guarantee Australia's national security?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MARLES</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
    <electorate>Corio</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question and acknowledge his advocacy for South Australian defence industry. In December 2013, Treasurer Joe Hockey stood at this very dispatch box and said to the Australian car industry, 'Either you're here or you're not.' And, with that, they left, with thousands of jobs gone and capability lost. This was the highest-tech, most complex manufacturing that we did in Australia, and the fundamentalist economic policies of those opposite laid waste to the jewel of Australian manufacturing. And, for all the hoopla that we've seen afterwards, the honest truth is that their attitude to industry policy was reflected in their attitude to defence industry.</para>
<para>Almost their first decision was to see Australia's supply ship be built in Spain, and thus they exposed the workforce at the Osborne shipyard in Adelaide to a valley of death. They wanted to have our next generation of submarines built in Japan, and so began 10 years of dithering around our submarine capability—on with the Japanese, off with the Japanese; on with the French, off with the French—so that, after almost 10 years in office, we saw no submarine steel cut in Adelaide under this government, and they exposed the country to a dangerous capability gap with our submarines which we have been left to fix. They were big on announcement and short on delivery.</para>
<para>The truth of defence industry over there was 28 different programs running a combined 97 years over time. And they never understood the strategic rationale for defence industry and the way in which it can build Australia's strategic weight and how we can be taken more seriously around the world. When Austal—an Australian shipbuilder building 12 per cent of the American service fleet with ships been designed in Fremantle—were bidding for the next generation of Australian frigates, those opposite did absolutely nothing. Indeed, the number of former ministers who visited the Austal shipyard in Mobile, Alabama, during that period of time was precisely zero. This government is very different. In the very near future, we will be announcing the optimal pathway to build Australia's nuclear-powered submarines, and at the heart of that will be developing the capacity as soon as possible to see nuclear powered submarines built in Adelaide—high-tech, high-skilled transformative industry That's because we are a government which is committed to seeing Australia be a country which makes things. We are a government which is committed to seeing our key defence assets be built in this country to drive Australian industry and to keep Australians safe.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, there is far too much noise in the chamber, from both sides of the chamber. This cannot continue, and, if it does, I'll take action. I can't be clearer than that.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interest Rates</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to his promise to always fess up and correct the record when he gets it wrong. Last year the RBA governor apologised to any Australian affected by his advice that interest rates would stay low. Prior to the election, the Prime Minister went even further than Governor Lowe and actually promised cheaper mortgages. Why has the Prime Minister failed to offer the same apology? Why do Australian families always pay more under Labor?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister will be heard in silence.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Cook has had a bit to say in their party room, so I'm going to add to his public statements now with what he said about shared equity schemes and what they would do, which is the question that I'm asked about. What the member for Cook said was this: 'We suggested that the government take out of that $8 billion and put aside'—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order, order! The Prime Minister will just pause for a moment. I cannot hear a word the Prime Minister is saying.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Page is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. I call the Prime Minister, and I want to hear what the Prime Minister is saying.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm asked about shared equity schemes, and I'm quoting the member for Cook, because 'shared equity mortgages are a really great opportunity'. That's what they had to say, and you know why he said it was a great opportunity? He said this, 'that you can reduce your payments'. That's what he had to say about shared equity. We need some more options for people to stay in their homes, and shared equity—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause for a moment. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance: the Prime Minister promised to reduce interest rates—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question about election commitments regarding mortgages and the prices and the costs imposed with interest rates. The Prime Minister is in order. He's answering the question about his election commitments, and I give him the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked a question about our election campaign launch, which was about our shared equity scheme, our help-to-buy scheme, launched in Perth. Do you remember Perth? I will give you a reminder! Swan! Pearce! Tangney! Hasluck! Do you remember Perth?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And when we announced the shared equity scheme, we did so because in Western Australia it has existed for some time. In Victoria there's now a scheme, and of course the Liberal government in NSW has announced a scheme as well. I'm also asked about the context of helping out on cost of living.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para> Those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition had an idea when he was the minister about cost of living. The first chance he got he wanted to raise the cost of seeing a GP by $7—by $7! His other big idea was to raise the cost of prescriptions by $5! We've gone down by $12.50. They went up by $5. But of course there's a link between primary health care and emergency departments, so let's not think that this wasn't a comprehensive plan, because here's his idea: the government will remove the restrictions on state and territory governments that prevent hospital emergency departments charging a fee for presentation. He wanted to charge people for fronting up to emergency departments. He wanted to charge people for going to their GP and he wanted to lift the price of medicines. That was his plan on cost of living. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>When the House comes to order—the member for Longman is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Spence Electorate: Manufacturing</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNELL</name>
    <name.id>300129</name.id>
    <electorate>Spence</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry and Science. Manufacturers in my electorate have created secure, high-skill, high-wage jobs for decades and play an important role in underpinning the prosperity in Spence. What is the government doing to support manufacturing businesses in my electorate and what obstacles is it facing?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks. I also want to thank—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Ask me a question. I want to thank the member for Spence for that question. The member for Spence has the great place of Elizabeth in his electorate, which had a great heritage. A lot of auto workers were employed there, who were very proud to make Australian-made cars. So I'm very grateful for that. And we know, like the Australian public knows, that manufacturing matters. It creates great, secure, well-paid, full-time employment for Australians.</para>
<para>As much as it's an economic imperative for this country to manufacture more, as we learnt in the pandemic, it's also important from a geopolitical point of view, because we've had so much of our production dependent on just one country, and the impact on supply chains has been huge. So we need, particularly in the key priority areas of the National Reconstruction Fund, to revitalise manufacturing, and this has been a big part of what we are trying to do across a range of areas to make sure that we change what we were left with by those opposite. We are the lowest producers of manufactured goods consumed in the OECD. So it's a big priority.</para>
<para>The NRF bill that we put forward has been in the chamber since December. We have offered in-depth briefings to coalition on that, yet the opposition can't help other than to oppose. It's always about opposition. And every time, on the big issues that involve Australian industry in this country, they are never there.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We had a Liberal defence minister who said you wouldn't trust Australian shipbuilders to build a canoe, a Liberal Treasurer here who dared car makers to leave. Those opposite tried to stop the national broadband network and then had to crawl back to do the right thing. They opposed the Button plan as well, superannuation—all the big calls they've continually opposed, never been there. And, when they had a chance to support manufacturers with the energy relief bill that we put through, when manufacturers needed access to better priced gas, they voted against it. They voted against Australian manufacturing continually. They have learnt nothing, they stand for nothing and they deliver nothing; they oppose everything. That is their standard.</para>
<para>I just want to make this point: you cannot be a party of the working class and pull the rug out from underneath the working class in the way your government did with manufacturing in this country—an absolutely shameful chapter.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Before I called the Member for Mayo, I will give the call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I ask the minister to table the paper that he's reading off—in particular, so we can ascertain the quality and the Australian-made nature of the paper that he's reading off.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Was the minister reading from confidential documents?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I absolutely was.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse</title>
          <page.no>58</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Social Services. The National Redress Scheme was designed to provide financial compensation to victims of child sex abuse, as recommended by the royal commission. Applicants have been told it will take a further 18 months to process, and they will not receive a gold card, despite the royal commission recommendation. Will the minister advise how the claim process can be improved to reduce the trauma of time, and whether the provision of a gold card will be introduced into the scheme's compensation package?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to thank the member for Mayo for that question. Since becoming the Minister for Social Services I've taken particular interest in the National Redress Scheme, and I have had a number of important meetings where I've been able to discuss progress, firstly with my ministerial colleagues, my state and territory colleagues, where we look to address the outstanding recommendations of the second-year review. The gold card was not one of those recommendations of the second-year review, but we are working through those issues and, hopefully, will be reporting early next year, when it comes to finalising that important work.</para>
<para>I also held a roundtable, a significant forum, with victim-survivors, as well with those delivering the redress scheme. We talked about some of the challenges around applications. Of course, dealing with applications in a timely manner is critically important; although it was noted that, in July last year, the scheme had gone online and there had not been appropriate resources allocated by the former government to deal with the influx of applications.</para>
<para>In the October budget I allocated an extra $15 million to deal with the application backlog. In saying that, I would like to note that the time it does take a participant to go through redress is not always the processing time. Sometimes it can be at the participant's request that they would like to pause because it becomes emotionally incredibly distressing. So, at times, it is directed by those who are part of the scheme to pause that. Also, when gathering information from institutions, sometimes those institutions are defunct and not able to provide it and that does cause delay. Application delay is something I am very mindful of. As I said, the government has allocated extra resources in the most recent budget. I look forward to continuing to work on how we best support people through that process, particularly making sure that those services that are funded to help them through in a trauma-informed way are there and that the application process within my department is also operating at its best.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FERNANDO</name>
    <name.id>299964</name.id>
    <electorate>Holt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How will the National Reconstruction Fund help to address some of the challenges, opportunities and risks facing the Australian economy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks to the member for Holt for her question and for the characteristically thoughtful contribution she made just before question time earlier today. We said we would create a National Reconstruction Fund and we are. I pay tribute to the former shadow minister, the minister and the Prime Minister for making progress on this really important part of our economic plan.</para>
<para>The need for the National Reconstruction Fund is really clear. When we came to office, there were obvious weaknesses in our supply chains. There were obvious consequences from a decade of energy policy chaos, and our industrial base was not wide enough or deep enough. All that meant our economy was not resilient enough at a time of extreme global volatility. This puts upward pressure on inflation. It is one of the reasons why inflation was already rising before the change of government and why interest rates were also rising before the election as well. It is why making our supply chains more resilient is such an important part of our efforts to address the inflation challenge. The National Reconstruction Fund is all about grabbing the chances that come with a changing economy. It is all about creating more economic opportunities for more people in more parts of our country, including the regions and especially when it comes to manufacturing.</para>
<para>It is a comical coincidence that in the same week that those opposite claim to be the party of the working class they say they will be voting against manufacturing jobs in this country. While it is disappointing, it is not especially surprising. Those characters have form. They have always seen manufacturing as something to chase away from our economy rather than something to support. They voted against taking some of the sting out of the gas prices, which were hollowing out manufacturers and risking sending them to the wall. They voted against the direct assistance for households and small businesses, and they wasted money in the budget at a time of rising inflation.</para>
<para>Over on this side of the House, we are interested in the solutions to our big economic challenges. Those opposite are part of the problem and that is why they are showing that, once again, with their opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund. We have always been the party for working people and we always will be. We have always been the party for manufacturing and we always will be. We are the only party in here with a plan to address the inflation challenge by making our economy more resilient and by making our budget more responsible at the same time by broadening and deepening our industrial base, by working with the private sector to grow the economy the right way and by backing the high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The Minister for Climate Change and Energy will cease interjecting. When people rise to their feet to ask a question, that is not the time to interject.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interest Rates</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. On Monday, the Prime Minister needed help from the Treasurer before he could tell the House that 800,000 households would be facing higher mortgage payments when they move from low fixed rates to higher variable rates this year. Prime Minister, how many small businesses will move on to variable rate loans this year? Why do Australian families and small businesses always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the question is: why does the shadow Treasurer exist if he's incapable of asking a question to the Treasurer? Why is it? Why is that the case? This is a bloke—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! Members on my left, I simply cannot hear the Prime Minister. If this continues, people will have—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Herbert is warned. When I am speaking, that is also not the time to interrupt. The Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence, and if this continues people will leave the chamber. It's that simple.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Mr Speaker.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has the call, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned as well.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is about interest rates from the shadow Treasurer, who's been incapable of asking a question of the Treasurer in a week in which—yesterday we thought there'd be a question to the Treasurer and there wasn't. When we were talking earlier today, I said to the Treasurer: 'I think today's the day, mate. I think today you are going to get a question from the shadow, so you'd better be ready.' And he said, 'I'm up for it.' And he waited and he waited and he waited, and nothing happened.</para>
<para>But of course, the shadow Treasurer did have something to say about interest rates when he was a part of the government, which was: 'We're facing circumstances in what's happening here in the Ukraine and Russia that were not expected and very hard to predict. These pressures are driven by extenuating circumstances.' Well, what we're doing, through the good work of this Treasurer, is making sure—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume, on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Taylor</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On relevance: he doesn't know how many small businesses are facing higher—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister is in order. The question was broad.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The mob who came in here and voted against energy price relief for small businesses have the hide to stand up here and speak about the costs when it comes to small business. But of course, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, who had this to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Well, I'm the opposition leader, right, and the joy of being the opposition leader is that I'm not in government.</para></quote>
<para>That's what he had to say. I'm not paraphrasing. That's exactly what he had to say.</para>
<para>I tell you this: we were in opposition for some time, and we had no joy in it. They have joy in it, because whether they're in opposition or in opposition in exile, sitting on the opposition bench, they're never for anything, only against it.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Bowman is warned. I repeat: when people are on their feet, that is not the time to interject.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mining Industry: Critical Minerals Strategy</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Resources. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to accelerate the growth of Australia's critical minerals sector after a wasted decade?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First, and very seriously, I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere condolences to the family of the worker who has tragically died following an incident at the BHP rail site in Port Hedland overnight. Every Australian worker should expect to come home safely from work, and any death at any Australian workplace is a tragedy. I'm sure we all, here today, extend our condolences to the family, friends and fellow workers of that worker.</para>
<para>I thank the member for Hunter for his excellent question. The demand for critical minerals is rapidly increasing, and this government is ensuring we are well placed to take advantage of this opportunity. Australia is the world's largest producer of lithium, the third-largest producer of cobalt, the fourth-largest producer of rare earth minerals and the fifth-largest producer of nickel. Exports of metals used in low-emission technologies are expected to generate $33 billion in export earnings in 2022-23, which is more than double what they earned the year before. The development of Australia's critical mineral resources is important not just to enable the global transition to net zero but to ensure our partners can access secure supplies of these vital minerals into the future.</para>
<para>Development of our critical minerals will be supported by this government's $1 billion Value-Adding in Resources Fund, part of the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund which will ensure a share of our raw minerals are processed here. This is the fund that those opposite are now objecting to and not supporting. Perhaps it is no surprise that those who dared the car manufacturers to leave now oppose the $1 billion Value-Adding in Resources Fund and its role in the National Reconstruction Fund.</para>
<para>But this was not always the case. Let me reflect on what others opposite have said about developing Australia's critical mineral extraction and processing capacity and the need to add more value in Australia. In relation to the Critical Minerals Facility, which Labor supported:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Eneabba Refinery Project strongly aligns with the objectives of the Government's Critical Minerals Strategy. It will capture more value on-shore …</para></quote>
<para>That was said by former resources minister Keith Pitt, the member for Hinkler—resources minister A, we shall call him! It was also said of that facility:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Building a modern manufacturing sector and securing our sovereign capability is a key part of our plans for a stronger economy …</para></quote>
<para>That was said by the former Treasurer and member for Kooyong—let's call him Treasurer A! It was also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We'll dig them up right here. We'll refine them right here. We'll look to make the products that use them right here.</para></quote>
<para>That was said by the other resources minister and the other Treasurer, who was also the Prime Minister and the member for Cook, among any other things.</para>
<para>So you have resources minister A and Treasurer A having this exact same principle endorsed by resources minister B, Treasurer B and the Prime Minister. You used to support this principle, and now you're running away from value-adding in resources. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LANDRY</name>
    <name.id>249764</name.id>
    <electorate>Capricornia</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The fuel tax credit scheme reduces costs on local businesses and keeps grocery bills lower for families. Will the Prime Minister rule out any change to the fuel tax credit scheme or is this just another way Australian families will pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Grants Funding</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The House will come to order. I want to hear the member for Macquarie in silence. The Leader of the Opposition and members on my left! I give the call to the member for Macquarie.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government using federal funding in a fair and accountable way, particularly in light of revelations regarding the use of federal money for bushfire relief in New South Wales?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Macquarie for her question. This week, those opposite announced they will vote no to our National Reconstruction Fund—a fund that will revitalise manufacturing and create secure jobs. I don't know why they want to bring Tony Abbott back in the Senate, because they can do exactly that philosophy of voting no to everything without him here! It is a fund that will provide an enormous boost to Australian agriculture, to Australian resources, to critical minerals, to renewable energy as well as to our defence.</para>
<para>The NRF will operate with integrity. It will have a board that is independent—a bit like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation model they tried to abolish time and time again. It will make decisions based upon what's best for our economy, not based upon what electorate an investment is in.</para>
<para>They said no to this accountable economy-wide investment in the same week that we learned about the egregious rorting of bushfire relief funding by the New South Wales Liberals and Nationals. We've seen sports rorts, car park rorts, Safer Communities rorts and colour coded spreadsheets from those opposite. But this is a whole different level. This is the lowest of the low. The idea that the National Party in New South Wales, with the funds that were provided by the federal government as well as by the state government, sat down and changed the rules over who should get bushfire funding relief is beyond contempt—absolutely beyond contempt. And as Prime Minister I have been to the electorates of the member for Riverina, the member for Page, the member for Calare, the member for Barker, the member for Durack, the member for Braddon and the member for Bass, where there have been natural disasters. And we don't look at a map. We just provide support wherever it's needed.</para>
<para>But the idea that, on one hand, they are saying no to the National Reconstruction Fund that will provide support for our national economy, that will create jobs, particularly in regional Australia, not based upon a colour coded map but based on private sector activity that it will facilitate, but are prepared to sit down and say nothing about the rorting of this bushfire fund relief—not a peep from those opposite about this disgrace— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is on a warning.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILLCOX</name>
    <name.id>286535</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Already regional Australians with a $500,000 mortgage are paying more than $12,000 a year as a result of recent rate hikes. Why do Australians always pay more under Labor?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question, but I don't thank him for voting against energy price relief. I don't thank him for not acknowledging the fact that pharmaceutical prices went down for people in his electorate from $42 50 to $30. I don't thank him for his carping and complaining about our childcare plans, which will provide childcare relief on 1 July.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Nationals is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I don't thank him for refusing to support our fee-free TAFE plan, which will provide 180,000 fee-free TAFE places—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order on relevance: it was a very tight question about mortgages and recent rate hikes, not to give us a range of excuses, which is what the Prime Minister is doing right now.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has had almost one minute of a preamble. The question was about mortgages and interest rates and costs. I'm asking him to be relevant to the question and ask him to return to the question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks, Mr Speaker. I was listening carefully to the tag there, and it said what was occurring under Labor, and I'm informing the member of what is happening under Labor—cheaper medicine, cheaper child care, expanding paid parental leave, getting wages moving, more affordable housing, energy price relief, and fee-free TAFE. Every one of those positive plans, supported by those here, was opposed by those opposite, just as they're going to oppose the regional jobs created by our National Reconstruction Fund, just as they're opposing manufacturing jobs in our region and the opportunity that businesses will have to renew by investing in newer equipment and transforming themselves, getting access to cleaner and cheaper energy, or new industries developing, such as the ones that my friend the Minister for Resources indicated in her answer earlier on today.</para>
<para>I say to the member opposite that the Australian people sent a message on 21 May, and that message was this. They had conflict fatigue. They were sick of a government that just said what it was against and sought division. They wanted positive plans. And that's what we're delivering.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Albanese Labor government responding to the inflation challenge? And what approaches has the government rejected?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is a very appropriate day for us to acknowledge the really important work that the member for Newcastle does in our team and in this parliament.</para>
<para>The inflation challenge is the defining feature of our economy in 2023, just as it was in 2022, and that makes it the government's major focus. In responding to the inflation challenge, the independent Reserve Bank has its job to do. It does that job independently, and we don't interfere with its deliberations or second-guess its decisions.</para>
<para>But we, in the government, have a plan to address this inflation challenge. It has three parts: responsible cost of living relief, which we provided in October and will provide again in May; tackling the supply chain challenges that were left to us, and we've been talking about that today; and delivering a responsible budget with spending restraint so that we're not adding further fuel to inflation. That's why, in the budget, we are returning 99 per cent of the revenue upgrades to the bottom line over the next two years, when inflation will be at its most acute, and returning 92 per cent over four years. That compares to an average of 40 per cent under our predecessors.</para>
<para>Our budget has payments falling in real terms over the next two years and real spending growth averaging just 0.3 per cent a year over the forward estimates. That compares to real spending growth under our predecessors of 4.1 per cent on average, and 2.6 per cent before the pandemic. Our first budget found $22 billion in savings. The impact of policy decisions was less than $10 billion—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Casey is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>with 85 per cent of this for unavoidable and legacy spending. This compares to the $30 billion impact of key policy decisions by our predecessors, with no expenditure savings whatsoever in the March budget.</para>
<para>So the restraint we showed in the budget was a key reason the IMF and ratings agencies have been so positive about our efforts. The IMF said our spending restraint 'will help support monetary policy in holding back excess demand'. Standard & Poor's said: 'We expect the budget to improve because of steady revenue growth, high commodity prices, and expenditure restraint.' Fitch Ratings credited the budget with outlining a broadly neutral fiscal stance in the near term. And Morningstar said of the budget, quite recently, that most of the revenue windfall is being saved and that recently announced policy measures, such as cost-of-living relief, are being targeted and offset. We know the best way to address inflation is through cost-of-living relief—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business will cease interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>dealing with supply chain pressures, including in the workforce, and managing the budget responsibly. That's why the spending restraint we've shown is so important and why it is completely unrecognisable to those opposite.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy, Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To the Prime Minister: the government can act on inflation and reduce emissions. In the US, the government passed the Inflation Reduction Act. Over 80 per cent of the measures in that act went towards supporting household electrification and energy efficiencies, which will result in huge cost-of-living savings. Will you implement a similar program to accelerate household electrification and reduce the cost of living for Australians?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. Of course there are examples of where electrification can lead to a decrease in the cost of energy production and where that is combined with renewables—particularly where you have renewables and battery storage. But I want to make this clear to the member for Warringah as well: this government won't be mandating what can be used in a household by individual Australians. I want to make that very clear.</para>
<para>So if people want to fire up a barbie or if restaurants want to use gas to produce their products, then that will be fine by us too. We want to be able to facilitate choice. Programs have been done in the past whereby people can get either interest-free loans or some sort of support in order to transform their existing use of energy. That can then be paid back, if you like, over a period of time. That can make sense as well.</para>
<para>We understand that the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States is a major breakthrough, and we also understand that around the world all governments are acting. The difference between the Australian government of 2023 and the Australian government of 2021 and early 2022 is that we are joining with the world, looking at best practice and looking at ways in which we can be part of the global solution to climate change. We know that increased use of renewables will reduce the cost of energy production, whether for households or for businesses, which is why it is tragic that we fell behind.</para>
<para>Business was so far ahead of the Australian government, which is why businesses, including peak organisations, like the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and small business, all backed our plan. Our plan for a 43 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 was opposed only by those opposite.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government working with Australia's biggest emitters to ensure they contribute a fair share towards our climate target while supporting economic growth, and what has been the response to these critical reforms?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank my honourable friend for his question and his leadership on matters of climate. As the member for Macnamara knows, the Albanese government was elected with a mandate of developing a framework of policy consistency for emissions reduction by our 215 biggest emitters by reforming the safeguard mechanism. On 9 January I went to Gladstone to announce the details of this policy, the government's preferred position, and we very much welcome the responses we've received from that.</para>
<para>This is important. The emissions reductions achieved by this policy are equivalent to taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the road. That's the size of the task. An important part of this reform is delivering below-baseline crediting. It's creating safeguard credits so that firms and facilities have an incentive to reduce their emissions even more than they're required to under the law. It's a very important part of the reform, and it's the only part of the reform that actually needs legislation; the rest will be done by regulation.</para>
<para>I always want to be fair about these matters, and I want to give credit where it's due: this was part of the policy we inherited from the previous government. In response to the expert panel on low cost abatement, the previous government announced that they would introduce below-baseline crediting, that they would introduce safeguard credits. That's what they said they would do. The former minister for energy announced that they would do it. We know the noalition opposes all of our policies, including the National Reconstruction Fund, but I have to report that the noalition has spiralled to such levels that it's now opposing its own policies. They're against their own policies.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat. The member for Hume is warned. I assume he wants to stay for the MPI. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the minister has twice used an inaccurate and offensive description of this side of the House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Resume your seat. The way question time will work is that the minister will refer to members or parties by their correct titles. The Manager of Opposition Business is correct.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To be fair to the member for Bradfield, we know there was a debate between him and the shadow cabinet about this policy, and he didn't agree. What we don't know is what the member for Hume contributed to that debate. The member for Hume, when announcing the policy—which is exactly what the government is implementing—said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this is just about making sure that Australian manufacturing has the right incentives in place to reduce emissions … This simply provides a carrot for them to be able to reduce their emissions beyond that baseline.</para></quote>
<para>That's what the member for Hume said in 2020. In 2021—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Hume is on a warning.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>he went on to say, 'This provides an incentive for businesses to reduce their energy costs.' Now, how did the member for Hume cope in shadow cabinet? Did he say, 'Fantastic; great move; well done,' or did he say, 'Terrible; bad move; not well done'? What did he say? What did the member for Hume say to shadow cabinet? He's against the policy he himself announced.</para>
<para>This tells us a number of things. We know the opposition is divided. We know they're dysfunctional. We know they have a worse climate policy now than they had under the member for Cook—which takes some doing. It also tells us this, and this is very important: they know this is good policy, but they're opposing it. They do not care about the national interest. If they don't care about the national interest in opposition, why would they ever care about it if they are ever in government?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moncrieff will leave the chamber. She has been continually interjecting.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moncrieff will come back to the dispatch box and apologise.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Bell</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I apologise.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Moncrieff.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The member for Moncrieff then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Donations to Political Parties</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister expelled CFMMEU boss John Setka from the Labor Party after Mr Setka was convicted for harassing his wife, saying, 'His values aren't the same as Labor's values.' Yet, following a period where the CFMMEU has continued with its notorious violence, thuggery and intimidation towards women, Labor has accepted a $4.3 million donation from the CFMMEU at this election. Prime Minister, what values does this Labor government share with the CFMMEU?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Ley</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should give that money back.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister will answer the question at the end.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I did take action to ensure that John Setka was expelled from the Labor Party. That's called leadership.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gender Pay Gap</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PAYNE</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to help close the gender pay gap?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today the government is taking a significant step forward in advancing gender equality in Australian workplaces. We're fulfilling a key election commitment of this government to close the gender pay gap at work, including by boosting pay gap transparency and by taking action to help close gender pay gaps within organisations.</para>
<para>We know that on average women working full time can expect to earn 14.1 per cent less than men per week. You can imagine, over a lifetime, that is a significant deficit in terms of women's pay and their capacity to participate fully in the economic and social life of this country. Current projections suggest that it will take another 26 years for us to close that gap. Women cannot wait. They can't afford to wait, and they should not have to wait.</para>
<para>With these reforms that are being introduced in the Senate, we will for the very first time publish the gender pay gaps of businesses that employ 100 or more people. We know that experience around the world shows that this transparency does lead to organisations taking action to close their gender pay gaps. This reform will put Australia in the leadership group of OECD countries that collect and publish gender pay gap data. The legislation responds to the recommendations of the 2021 review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, and they are, of course, just one aspect of the government's ambition for Australia to be a global leader in gender equality.</para>
<para>The budget put gender equality front and centre, investing over $7 billion to actually drive gender equality. Through the secure jobs, better pay legislation we took long-overdue steps to promote gender equality, better pay and secure work for women. We're modernising paid parental leave, and we're investing in cheaper child care. We introduced paid domestic violence leave, which commenced on 1 February. And, of course, we supported wage increases for the minimum wage and in aged care, where workers are predominantly women. We've introduced legislation to implement all of the recommendations of the <inline font-style="italic">Respect@Work</inline> report.</para>
<para>Under the previous government we fell as low as 71st in the World Economic Forum <inline font-style="italic">Global gender gap report 2022</inline>. This legislation being introduced by this government will deliver a better deal for women across Australia, and the government will continue to work hard every day to make Australia one of the most gender-equal countries in the world.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr HAINES</name>
    <name.id>282335</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Housing. Housing is the most critical cry for help in my electorate. The previous government's public National Housing Infrastructure Facility spent only 20 per cent of its allocated funding, with none directed to regional and rural Australia. Under your housing fund, can you guarantee that funding for social and affordable housing will actually be directed to regional and rural Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COLLINS</name>
    <name.id>HWM</name.id>
    <electorate>Franklin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Indi for her question but also for the great conversations and advocacy she's had from regional Australia, particularly in her electorate, when it comes to affordable housing and making sure more of her constituents can have a safe, affordable place to call home, because we understand that we need more Australians to have a safe, affordable place to call home, because it's central to security and dignity for all Australians. But, of course, what we had was a decade of very little action by the former Liberal-National government, and it's left us with significant challenges right across the country.</para>
<para>Whether it be in Wangaratta in the member for Indi's electorate or in Burnie in my own state, people are struggling to find a home that suits their needs and that they can afford. I hear it all the time: strong employment growth has not been matched with housing supply. We have businesses and local governments that have jobs to fill. However, attracting workers is frustrating because there is nowhere for them to live. It's actually a very serious issue.</para>
<para>So tomorrow I will be introducing the legislation that the member asked about, which is the single largest investment in new social and affordable homes in more than a decade: the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Indeed, the returns from this fund will be there in perpetuity to invest in social and affordable housing right across the country. We anticipate there'll be 30,000 social and affordable homes in the first five years of that fund. Importantly for the member for Indi, Housing Australia, the new entity that will be created by the legislation that we introduce tomorrow, will ensure that this funding stream is equitably and fairly distributed across all states and territories but also in inner-city, outer-suburban, regional and rural Australia. We need to make sure that the funding goes where it's most needed, but we also need to make sure that they're the right homes in the right places.</para>
<para>The legislation that I introduce will also have the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council, to be independent and provide independent advice to all tiers of government on options to increase housing supply right across the country. We want to make sure that that advice is independent, because we need to make sure that we have the right policies and the right levers are pulled by the right tiers of government to get more homes on the ground much more quickly.</para>
<para>The member raised the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and its investments. We unlocked up to $575 million that was not being utilised, and just last week I was in Burnie to see an example of how the Commonwealth funding, with the state funding and the community housing provider, will provide 180 new homes just in north-west Tasmania. We, of course, have brought forward our Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee also, and we now have over 1,700 Australians who have their own homes because we brought it forward. I want to assure the member we will be making sure that homes are in the right places right across the country and making sure that more Australians have a safe, affordable place to call home. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to help Australians with the cost of health care, and why has health care become so expensive?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Lingiari for her question but also for her wise advice about the delivery of healthcare services in her community in the Northern Territory. She also knows that it's never been harder to see a GP in Australia than it is right now, and it has never been more expensive. More Australians than ever before are having to pay a gap fee to see the doctor, and those gap fees have skyrocketed over the past decade. For the first time in the history of Medicare, the average gap fee for a standard GP consult is now more than the Medicare rebate itself, and gap fees to see a specialist skyrocketed by a whopping 100 per cent over the past decade.</para>
<para>This massive increase to the cost of health care didn't just spring from thin air. This huge hit on household budgets was the inevitable consequence of the short but infamous tenure of the man voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in the history of Medicare, the now Leader of the Opposition. Australians will never forget, after promising there would be no cuts to health under him as health minister, his first budget tried to rip $50 billion from hospitals, tried to jack up the price of every medicine script by $5 and tried to slug every single Australian—every pensioner, every child, every concession card holder—with a tax on every single visit to the doctor. Then, after we blocked his radical, extremist agenda in the Senate, he instead imposed a six-year-long Medicare rebate freeze, cutting billions and billions of dollars from general practice.</para>
<para>The contrast between that and our first budget could not be clearer. Our first budget delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS, a $12.50 cut to the general scripts—not a $5 fee increase, which would have happened under the health minister then, the now Leader of the Opposition, if he got his way. In our budget, $200 million is back in the pockets of hardworking Australians. That's good for household budgets and good for the health of Australians, helping them ensure that they could afford the scripts that their doctors had prescribed as important for their health.</para>
<para>Our cheaper medicines policy is already making a difference to millions of Australians. Lyn from Canberra wrote to us recently. She said: 'My prescriptions have gone down since January 1st. This is such a welcome change for someone trying to manage a chronic illness and not eligible for a healthcare card.' For this side of the House, it's all part of our commitment to strengthening Medicare and providing Australian households with responsible, targeted cost-of-living relief.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, when was your office made aware that the Minister for Home Affairs had allowed the designation of Nauru as a regional processing country to lapse last October?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I really appreciate that question.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McEwen will leave the chamber.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for McEwen then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dutton</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just a query of you. The question was asked of the Prime Minister when his office was made aware that the minister had failed in her duty. The minister can't answer that question on behalf of the Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Under <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> the Prime Minister can ask another minister to address a question. It has long been the practice in this parliament and particularly in previous parliaments that I have served in.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was informed of this on 15 December, and the Prime Minister's office was informed immediately after that.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Government Services. What has the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme uncovered about the inaccuracy of the unlawful robodebt system?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. Members of the House may be interested to know that there's an important pattern of evidence emerging from the royal commission into robodebt, in that the previous government and its various ministers were frequently, repeatedly and numerously warned over an extended period of years of problems with the robodebt scheme, yet the unlawful, illegal scheme continued.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume his seat. I will hear from the Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Fletcher</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I've raised with you, on a number of occasions, the danger that the conduct of the Minister for Government Services, in repeatedly reporting on the proceedings of the royal commission, is doing in terms of the overall status of the royal commission. I've referred particularly to Speaker Snedden's ruling that it raises the real threat of influencing the commission, and I make this further point, which is that the damage is greater with each successive time that this minister offends against the well-established protocols of this House.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Assistant Treasurer will cease interjecting. I'd like to hear the Leader of the House in silence.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the point of order, if I can provide an example slightly more recent than Billy Snedden: when the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption was on, there were 56 questions that were asked on the floor of the chamber. The practice of being able to ask and answer questions of this nature has been very well established.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Perrett</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Hoist by your own petard!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Moreton is warned. When I'm about to give a ruling is definitely not the time to interject. In relation to the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme, my approach has been to allow evidence to the commission which has been publicly reported to be referred to in the House. But what I am less comfortable with is putting a construction on the evidence or the drawing of conclusions about the conduct of individuals who are parties to the proceedings. I therefore ask all members, including the minister, to refrain from doing this when speaking about this royal commission in the House.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to specifically draw the attention of the House to some of the following evidence and exhibits in the royal commission revealing the warnings that were not acted upon: exhibit 3064, meeting with ACOSS, 29 November 2016; exhibit 4649, letter from former senator Nick Xenophon on 4 December 2016; exhibit 4641, media release from the member for Clark dated 6 December 2016; exhibit 4648, constituent representations also raised by the member for Clark in December 2016; exhibit 4648, data validation process that DHS briefed the member for Aston on in December 2016; exhibit 4652, Centrelink officer who blew the whistle to the media on 23 December; exhibit 4654, letter from the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children on 30 December; exhibit 4732, further correspondence warning on the scheme; exhibit 2532, an email from a Centrelink compliance officer to the secretary of the former minister's department on 7 February 2017.</para>
<para>There were protests from robodebt victims directly to the member for Aston's office. In addition, a literature search reveals literally tens of thousands of articles in the media. It's been revealed in the commission that the minister investigated the personal files of 52 complainants, but not the actual complaints about the legality of the robodebt scheme. There were 19,780 internal reviews by people within the system complaining about robodebt. There were 4,339 external reviews to the AAT related to robodebt. There was an ongoing campaign, which was recorded by the then opposition in the parliament, and other parties in the media. There was exhibit 4775, the missing $1 million PricewaterhouseCoopers commissioned report. Even a ParlInfo search reveals 713 mentions of robodebt in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>between 7 February 2017 and 12 November 2020. Australians listening to this question time will be justifiably perplexed and outraged as to why these warnings failed to have the scheme stopped. Perhaps one answer is that the four coalition ministers who've appeared have said, on no fewer than 140 occasions between them, 'I don't recall,' or some variation of that. When the ministers don't recall what was happening, what chance do the robo-victims have?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para> <inline font-style="italic"> (</inline> <inline font-style="italic">) (</inline> <inline font-style="italic">):</inline> My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if the Minister for Home Affairs's office and your office were advised on 15 December last year that the designation of Nauru as a regional processing centre had lapsed in October, why wasn't the issue dealt with on that day, given that parliament was sitting on 15 December?</para>
<para class="italic">Opposition members interjecting —</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! There is far too much noise. The question has been asked, and I give the call to the Minister for Home Affairs.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the shadow minister for home affairs well knows, there's quite a process to redesignate Nauru as a regional processing country. We actually went through it all yesterday—you'd probably be aware of that. Quite a lot of documentation and consultation would have needed to occur, which did occur. I respect the questions of the shadow minister for home affairs, but I'd also point out that we did deal with this yesterday and Nauru has been redesignated.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Education</title>
          <page.no>68</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Education. What challenges are facing Australia's education system as children go back to school, and what will the Albanese Labor government do to address them?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Schools are back now right across the country, including in Tasmania. There are a lot of happy students and a lot of relieved parents. I'm asked about challenges by the member for Lyons; there are plenty of them. The worst of COVID is, hopefully, now behind us, but we're still seeing the lingering after-effects of it in our schools. Ask any teacher and they will tell you about the mental health impacts that are still affecting some students. That's why this year we're rolling out funding to each and every school right across the country to fund things like extra counsellors but also practical things like school camps and excursions.</para>
<para>You can also see the impact of COVID on school attendance rates, which dropped again last year. But it's not just COVID: over the last 10 years we've seen a drop in attendance rates right across the board, amongst boys and girls, primary schools and high schools, government and non-government schools, in the bush and in the cities. This is serious, because if you're not at school you're not learning. That's why I've put this on the agenda to discuss with education ministers when we meet later this month.</para>
<para>We've also got the challenge of a teacher shortage crisis. Go to any school and you'll see it. In the last 10 years, we've seen a drop in the number of people becoming schoolteachers of about 16 per cent. Not enough young people are becoming teachers, and too many people are leaving the profession they love, and it has an impact on our schools. In December, just before Christmas, education ministers met to sign off on a plan to tackle this, and the challenge this year is for us to roll out that plan.</para>
<para>But the biggest challenge of all is this: if you're a child from a poor family, if you're a child from regional Australia, if you're an Indigenous child, you're three times more likely to fall behind at school. That's the verdict of a Productivity Commission report that came out only a couple of weeks ago. Ten years ago, the gap in reading skills between an eight-year-old from a poor family and an eight-year-old from a wealthy family was one year. It's now more than two, and that gap grows with every year at school, so by the time you're in year 9 the gap is five years. That's the awful truth.</para>
<para>In the last 10 years we've seen attendance rates getting worse, the teacher shortage getting worse and this gap getting worse as well. That Productivity Commission report is blistering in its criticism of the coalition Education Agreement. It says that it lacks targets and lacks real, practical reforms to get there. The next one will not. In the next few weeks, I'll announce an independent panel to advise on what those targets should be and the reforms to get there, tied to funding, to help us build a better education system and a fairer education system for all Australians.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>69</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Interest Rates</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hume proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's inaction as rapidly rising mortgage interest rates are devastating Australian families and households.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Yesterday Australian households and small businesses received tough news from the Governor of the Reserve Bank, with a ninth consecutive interest rate increase. They have seen the cash rate now get up to 3.35 per cent. Of course, they are now, if they're on variable rates, paying far, far more than that. We know that 800,000 Australian households are going to be moving from fixed rates to those floating rates in the course of this year. Many small businesses are in the same boat. Sadly, the Prime Minister today failed to tell us how many, but we know a very large proportion of those businesses who have a loan will move from fixed rates to floating rates this year. For a typical family that has entered into a new mortgage of $750,000—and in south-western Sydney and, indeed, in my electorate you'll see much bigger mortgages than that—that means they will be making additional payments of $18,000 a year.</para>
<para>An opposition member: How much?</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Eighteen thousand dollars a year. This is a very scary time for many of those households, because they entered into these mortgages expecting that they were going to be making payments substantially smaller than that. What they all know is that, in their household budgets, something has to give. Are they going to do more overtime, which will mean they won't be able to pick up the kids from school? Are they going to take another job, a second job, which will mean, again, less family time, less time with friends and loved ones? Are they going to have to drop their family holiday this year? These are tough decisions for Australian households, and decisions that they didn't anticipate having to make, but that is the reality of the situation that we have right now.</para>
<para>We haven't seen interest rates at this level since 2012. And in 2012 Labor was in government.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tehan</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Who was in government in 2012?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor was in government. You always pay more under Labor. Back in 2012 and early 2013, we saw high interest rates, and then, for nine years, we saw lower interest rates. Then, right on cue, Labor is back, and interest rates go up.</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>They're over there looking for all the excuses. There are all the excuses, but the reality is: this is what happens, and it happens every time.</para>
<para>We know that the Reserve Bank is independent and it has to make independent decisions, although we did have the member for Whitlam out jawboning the Reserve Bank, telling them what to do. But the terrible news—and this is terrible news for Australian households—is that the governor told us yesterday, in his statement, that multiple rises are yet to come. Despite the jawboning from the member for Whitlam, multiple rises are yet to come. If you look at the bond market, which prices mortgage rates, as of yesterday afternoon it is expected that the cash rate will go to 3.9 per cent in July this year. That's where the market is at, and any amount of jawboning from the government is not going to change that being where the market is.</para>
<para>You would have thought, given those circumstances, given the pain that Australians are feeling, that this would be a priority for the government. You would have thought that. Australian households are hurting. It's not just households who have got a mortgage; it's also all those aspirational renters out there. When we look amongst the suburbs and towns in our electorates, we see family after family, Australian after Australian, who want to buy a house, but, when interest rates are going like that, they simply can't do it. On top of that, we know small businesses have had to borrow to get through COVID. They borrowed to build their businesses, to employ people and to invest in the equipment that they need. They too are feeling the pain of these rising interest rates, and they want to see a government that cares, a government that makes this a top priority.</para>
<para>Well, what have we seen in recent weeks? We've seen a prime minister who does press conferences where he wants to talk about anything except the cost of living and rising interest rates. He'll talk about anything, except he doesn't want to make the top priority—the first thing he leads out with—in his press conferences the real pain that Australians are feeling. He doesn't want to talk about that.</para>
<para>But it gets worse than that. That's bad, but it gets worse, because we have a treasurer who spent the summer writing a 6,000-word ideological essay. You know, Australians want the priority of the government to be their priorities, not the remaking of capitalism, not a 6,000-word ideological essay—and it's had a lot of reviews. I think the biggest and most important review is the review from the Australian people who say, 'We care about the rising cost of living and rising interest rates.'</para>
<para>But there have been other reviews, and I want to talk about a couple of them. The economist Steven Hamilton called the essay 'an incoherent assortment of kumbaya capitalist thought bubbles'. That is not what Australians need when they're facing serious cost-of-living pressures. That was after having written:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I don't recall ever having read so many words—almost 6000—that contained so little. No clear proposition, no coherent framework for thinking about the world, no tangible plan of action.</para></quote>
<para>Well, Australians want a tangible plan of action.</para>
<para>In the <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> editorial in 29 January we read that the Treasurer's essay 'harks back to an essentially old model of more government intervention and higher taxes'. We know that's what's coming. At a time when making ends meet is a top priority for the Australian people, we have a government that we know is working out how to tax them more. The <inline font-style="italic">AFR</inline> reported that an Australian business leader said that the idea of rewriting the rules of capitalism is absolutely preposterous.</para>
<para>Now, this is another one. Crikey—I don't normally read it—gave this assessment:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The treasurer's unimpressive essay is an announcement of a strategy of political control as much as it is of economic planning.</para></quote>
<para>Adam Creighton, in the <inline font-style="italic">Austral</inline><inline font-style="italic">ian</inline>, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Treasurer's rambling missive, where it is coherent—</para></quote>
<para>I struggled with that bit—</para>
<quote><para class="block">is excessively gloomy and wrongly blames economic problems on the non-existent bogeyman of "neoliberalism" …</para></quote>
<para>We've heard from many industry groups on this as well. Ai Group's Innes Willox warned against sleepwalking into being a quasi-command economy. Simon Crean, the former Labor Party leader, who was trying to be gentle—he was on his side, of course—said: 'It hasn't got a lot of details.'</para>
<para>The reality is that this government has done all the wrong things to put downward pressure on interest rates and inflation. We do have an independent Reserve Bank, but much of what the government does affects what the Reserve Bank does. There are three things in particular that I've seen them do that are just extraordinary in this context of the rising cost of living and rising interest rates.</para>
<para>The first is an industrial relations initiative which is only going to exacerbate the price-wage spiral. We all want to see higher real wages. Everyone in this parliament wants to see higher real wages—of course we do—but what we don't need is more inflation that reduces real wages. That's what we don't want to see. We don't want to see a toxic industrial relations environment. I'm old enough to have lived through the last time we had that, and there were sensible people on the other side of the chamber, in Labor, who saw the need to move towards a more enterprise driven industrial relations environment, and that meant moving away from industrywide bargaining.</para>
<para>Second, we've seen a ham-fisted energy policy where they themselves have refused to recommit to the goal they set before the last election of reducing electricity prices. They know they've got to give up on that. They know that they are driving up electricity prices, and that is only going to make inflation worse.</para>
<para>Thirdly, we've got a government who, for the first time since the Charter of Budget Honesty came into place, have dropped, explicitly, the goal of a balanced budget. They've dropped it. It's gone. Even Wayne Swan had that goal, but not the current treasurer. This government has not made the cost of living and putting downward pressure on interest rates a priority. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's amazing to see what this opposition has chosen to do in public and what it chooses to do in private. In private, the now-shadow Treasurer chose to hide a 20 per cent increase in electricity prices from the people of Australia in the middle of an election. In private, those opposite allowed the member for Cook to sign himself into a number of secret ministries, including the Treasury portfolio. But then, publicly, when they came here in December, they chose to vote against lower power bills and power bill relief for Australian families. It is amazing that they would have chosen not to act when asked in this place: 'Do you want to help families with power-bill relief?' They chose to vote no. But they still have the confidence, and I admire the confidence of the shadow Treasurer, I really do, to come in here and lecture us about cost-of-living relief.</para>
<para>This group—a political party, the Liberal Party, the National Party—have an amazing ability, bizarrely, to sometimes speak the truth in government. It is not often, but sometimes they do. It was just less than a year ago that we had Senator Birmingham telling us exactly how the economy works. He said, 'The Reserve Bank will do what it thinks is best in accordance with its independent charter.' Of course, interest rates have always been going to normalise from their abnormally historic lows. This shows that what we seeing from those opposite is not just an attempt to politicise the decisions of the independent Reserve Bank but also their choice to quote from a very limited scope of history.</para>
<para>So often we hear from those opposite about how their political hero John Howard was a great economic manager. What they always forget to remind the Australian people, and I can see why, is which party and which Treasurer delivered the highest ever interest rates to the Australian people. We know it was, in fact, the Liberal Party. In April 1982 we had an interest rate of 21.4 per cent under Treasurer John Howard. The opposition have delivered two things when they've been in government. First, they delivered the highest ever interest rate paid by the Australian people, that 21.4 per cent under Treasurer Howard, and, second, they left the Australian people with the largest ever debt. Those opposite left $1 trillion of debt on their way out the door. They left the Australian people with a secret power bill increase of 20 per cent and $1 trillion of debt to pay off.</para>
<para>It's just phenomenal that they also now have a leader of the opposition who is running around saying how much he enjoys being in opposition. I'm sure that was great news to so many on the opposition benches, hearing the opposition leader say, 'The joy of being the opposition leader is that I'm not in government.' That must be a great encouragement for those trying to hang onto their seats, for those who might one day aspire to be a minister and for those who might one day gain a seat for the Liberal Party or the National Party. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that we've got to see him smile a little bit more. Now that I know what makes him smile, that is quite odd. But he does say, 'The joy of being the opposition leader is that I'm not in government.' I guess it's a case of 'find a job you love, and you'll have it for life'.</para>
<para>When the opposition leader talked about interest rates on 3 May 2022, he was able to be very upfront and honest with the Australian people. He said: 'It's a reality of a world where there's inflation. I think Australians understand that there's a lot of pressure—upward pressure—on interest rates at the moment.' Again, we got honesty back in the day, but now we get—the shadow Treasurer is not here anymore I was going to talk about him to his face; instead, I'll talk about him in his absence. I'm sure his colleagues will pass it on. He actually issued a press release last year in opposition, where he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The answer to addressing rising inflation … it's to have sensible fiscal and monetary policy driven by a focused, independent Reserve Bank.</para></quote>
<para>He didn't quite say that again today, did he? He didn't quite outline the same sober, calm economic policies. We got a lecture at another time from the now shadow Treasurer telling us that the Albanese government needed to show constraint on expenditure. If only he'd given that lecture when he was in the party room and the cabinet of the Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott governments, we wouldn't have that trillion dollars of debt—that beautiful gift that gets more and more expensive to service because the former government chose to leave so much debt behind and so little plan on how to pay for it.</para>
<para>I admire the shape-shifting, form-changing skills and capabilities of the opposition because today they've undergone their biggest transformation yet. It used to be the party of free enterprise. It used to be the party—they'd claim—of low taxes, even though they've always taxed higher than the governments that came before them. But today we got the best claim of all—my favourite so far—which is the so-called party of the Australian working class, according to the Leader of the Opposition. The party of the Australian working class. The party of WorkChoices is the party of this Australian working class. The party that tried to force Medicare co-payments is the party of the working class. The party that went to the last election opposing an increase to the minimum wage is the party of the working class.</para>
<para>The member for Cook, the marketer and chief, may have moved on. I'm pleased to see the leadership style of all marketing and no policy has continued under this opposition. I mentioned the member for Cook. When the member for Cook was the secret treasurer commenting on interest rates on 3 May last year, on the question of interest rates, the secret treasurer and public Prime Minister said, 'In the last 12 months, the IMF has more than doubled their estimates of forecasts this year on inflation to well over seven per cent for this year from about the mid threes.' That has changed massively, and we all know the reasons why. He said, 'We saw a bit of that in the last inflation date, and I expect we'll see a bit more,' when he was asked whether we would see more interest rate increases.</para>
<para>It's important to put all of that on the record because under all of this is a simple fact: we have a huge inflation challenge and families are doing it tough. We have to be realistic about what we can do. I want to talk about what we can do. I note that the Prime Minister was in Jagajaga the other week talking about our plans to make child care more affordable for 1.2 million Australian families. I know that in the electorate of Bean, that's going to benefit the families who send their children to some 47 early childhood education care centres.</para>
<para>When we talk about what we can do when it comes to making education more affordable, it's this government that's introduced fee-free TAFE. In the electorate of Hasluck, there will be more affordable TAFE for 18,000 Western Australians, including at Midland TAFE. We're trying to get through parliament the National Reconstruction Fund. This was something that was taken to the election and the Australian people endorsed it. We were completely open about our intention. We know that it will give people good, secure Australian jobs that we need to secure our economy and provide the tax base for the future. For some reason, which is yet to be explained, the coalition has chosen to vote against that.</para>
<para>There's so much more this government is doing to make sure we act in a responsible way on the cost-of-living pressures people face. We backed a minimum wage increase. We went to the election saying we would do it. We wrote to the Fair Work Commission asking for it, and it has been delivered. We have introduced legislation for cheaper, cleaner energy. We have said that the May budget will have bill relief for families, which was opposed by those opposite. We are going to deliver cheaper child care—an idea that the then Leader of the Opposition put out almost three years ago. It was there for them to grab when they were in government and they chose not to. We're delivering cheaper medicines. At $12.50 per script, it is cheaper for families. We are delivering fee-free TAFE, expanding paid parental leave, building more affordable homes and ensuring that pensions increase in line with inflation. This is the responsible cost-of-living relief Australians expect from a responsible government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBER</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>T () (): Nine months in government and nine consecutive interest rate rises—be in no doubt that you will always pay more under the Labor Party. Day after day, the Prime Minister wants to talk about everything except the cost-of-living crisis—Labor's cost-of-living crisis. It is the No. 1 issue facing Australians today. In relation to my electorate on the Gold Coast, if I look at Melbourne based firm Digital Finance Analytics, their data reveals that the number of Gold Coasters facing mortgage stress has increased by 1,500 people since November, with 25,404 now struggling to make their repayments. The postcodes with the highest proportion of struggling homeowners are predominantly in my electorate: postcodes 4216 to 4209, including Coomera and Pimpama.</para>
<para>This is a serious issue that requires a concerted focus from this government and a focus that, frankly, we're not seeing. This government has got to stop spending. It has got to stop $50 billion of off balance sheet expenditure. The Reserve Bank is seeking to take money out of the system by raising interest rates, and what is this government doing? It is recklessly spending. Families, including those on double incomes are struggling to make ends meet and they are having to make tough calls to keep their homes, including 25,404 homes in my electorate. They're taking second jobs, they're working overtime and they're giving up on holidays. Yet what does this government do? What does this government prioritise?</para>
<para>In fact, the very first economic decision of this government—the first decision taken by Treasury ministers—wasn't to deal with inflation or to deal with the cost of living. It was, as a statement of fact, to water down transparency as to what super funds report in relation to their funding and their slush fund payments. We'll deal with that in the Senate this afternoon, but that was the very first act of this government's Treasury. That was the most important thing the Labor government thought they had to do: to take away transparency of $40 million of payments from super funds to union movements. That was the priority. That's a statement of fact.</para>
<para>Let's wait and see what the Senate does this afternoon, because this morning the entire crossbench and the Greens voted against this lonely, pathetic government as they stood up and tried to block transparency. So let's not have the government walk in here and tell us that they are concerned about cost of living when the very first action of their Treasury ministers was to water down transparency. Those opposite can hide under any number of rocks, but they can't hide from that decision. After nine sordid months of hiding, it will catch up on those opposite. Hardworking Australians are paying more and more for their mortgages while this government hides, without transparency, because the government cannot get its priorities right. As they make industrial relations less flexible and make it harder for companies to employ Australians, we're seeing mortgages of $750,000 and the mortgage holders paying an extra $16,000 a year in repayments. Without an economic plan from this government, the Reserve Bank is having to do all the heavy lifting, and, as the Reserve Bank governor said yesterday, further rate increases are on the rise to get consumption down and to get inflation down. Without an economic plan from those opposite, hardworking families and struggling businesses will pay the highest price.</para>
<para>But I will give one recommendation to the government. Over 50 days ago, Michelle Levy issued her report on how to make it easier for Australians to get financial advice. This government, in opposition, used to scream at the previous government about releasing reports. 'The Hayne royal commission report,' they said, 'must be released immediately.' We took 2½ days over the weekend to look at it. This government has had 50 days on the Levy report. It was released today. The government should have stood up and said, 'We're going to implement all the recommendations.' What did they do? They said they were going to have a consultation on the consultation they just had. Pathetic. Agree to every single recommendation of the Levy report. It will help Australians. It will assist them in getting advice. It will at least be the start of an economic plan. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms THWAITES</name>
    <name.id>282212</name.id>
    <electorate>Jagajaga</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It does feel rich to stand up here and debate a matter of public importance from the other side which talks about inaction, because, of course, that's what we saw from the coalition for almost a decade when they were in government. As much they are involved as revisionist history and forgetting what happened in the past, what they can't forget is that when they were in the government benches, what happened was nothing. What happened was that this country was left to drift. They were not listening to the concerns of the Australian people. They certainly were not delivering support and relief to families and households. Those opposite who get up here with their new version of what happened were actually asleep at the wheel when they could have done something about it.</para>
<para>On the odd occasion when they actually did wake up and think, 'Hold on, we're in government; we have those levers of power and there are things we might be able to do,' what they tried to do made things worse for the Australian community. Their ideas were things like undermining Medicare, the public health system we all rely on. It is such a big factor in whether Australians feel like they are supported and whether they feel like they can keep their family and household budgets under control. Those opposite did not support Medicare. They put their ideological opposition to public health care ahead of the needs of Australian households and Australian families. We know they opposed wage rises over that near decade in government—in fact, we know it was a deliberate design policy of the system. We know that they left us with $1 trillion of debt and nothing to see for it.</para>
<para>After almost a decade of inaction, it is, as I said, rich, hypocritical—there are many words I could reach for at this point—for them to come in here, after eight months of this side being in government, to speak about inaction. The shadow Treasurer and the member for Fadden bring some very recently found concerns. In fact, the member for Fadden decided to take this debate into the realm of transparency. Apparently transparency is something that those on the other side are now very passionate about. I genuinely welcome this because, again, it is not something that we experienced much in this place over the previous term when I was in this parliament; certainly not over the previous near decade when those opposite were in power. I do wonder whether part of these issues we face, part of this mess in the economic space that we are trying to clean up as a government, was due to that lack of transparency on the other side. Maybe it was because the previous Treasurer did not realise that, in fact, he had a shadow Treasurer in the member for Cook, that nothing was happening, that there was drift and denial and inaction. There certainly was not transparency.</para>
<para>Our government is different. We are upfront with the Australian people about these being challenging times. We know that they are challenging times. We know that Australian families do need support, and we are looking to do that. We are delivering cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and direct energy bill relief. We are making it cheaper for people to go to TAFE, with fee-free TAFE. We are putting in place our National Reconstruction Fund to get jobs and manufacturing going in this country again. Of course we are committed. We have done work to get wages moving again. All of these have a direct impact on Australian families and Australian households. We had the Prime Minister visit my electorate just last week to talk with families in Macleod directly about what is going on with them and about the relief we will deliver through our cheaper childcare plan. That will be direct assistance that supports so many Australian families.</para>
<para>We know there is a lot to be done. You don't get through a decade of inaction and mismanagement in nine months. You just don't. We're upfront with the Australian people about this being a big job, but on this side of the House we are adults who are up to the big job. We are going to continue to behave in a responsible way to support Australian families, to support Australian households with cost-of-living relief at a very challenging time and to clean up the mess we've been left by those on the other side.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This MPI today, moved by the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer, is on the government's inaction as rapidly rising mortgage interest rates are devastating Australian families and households. Yesterday it was announced that mortgages would see their ninth consecutive rise and the seventh rise under the Albanese Labor government.</para>
<para>Australian homeowners are being crippled not just by rising interest rates and higher mortgage costs under Labor but also at the supermarket and at the bowser with petrol and diesel. The Albanese government failed to extend the discounts that the coalition government gave to people right around this country. Electricity prices are rising despite Prime Minister Albanese saying that he would cut electricity prices by $275. They've gone up, up and up. Now, gas bills and rent are huge.</para>
<para>What did Labor say about interest rates prior to the election? Right here, in my hand, I have Prime Minister Albanese's speech at the Australian Labor Party's federal election campaign launch in 2022 in the city of Perth.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Perth was there; he might remember. Prime Minister Albanese said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Thank you, Mark, for that kind introduction—</para></quote>
<para>obviously speaking to the Premier—</para>
<quote><para class="block">and for all you've done to keep WA safe—</para></quote>
<para>during COVID. You might have thought he'd thank the member for Cook for that as well, for the 700,000 jobs we saved during COVID, but no. He thanked Mark and he went on. In part of that speech—</para>
<para>Government members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>These members opposite all got elected in 2022. This is what the Prime Minister said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Labor has real, lasting plans for cheaper electricity—</para></quote>
<para>that hasn't happened—</para>
<quote><para class="block">Cheaper child care—</para></quote>
<para>right. Okay. Even if I give you that one—</para>
<quote><para class="block">Cheaper mortgages.</para></quote>
<para>'Cheaper mortgages', said Prime Minister Albanese. There you go.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's not what the Australian people thought. 'Cheaper mortgages' is pretty clear.</para>
<para>On 1 May, this is what the Prime Minister said to Australians during the election campaign: 'We'll lower your mortgages.' This is what the Labor candidate in Petrie, his candidate in my seat, said: 'Queenslanders are getting smashed by the cost of living. We can't afford another three years of the member for Cook.' He named him. 'Queensland homeowners face having to find almost $400 a month', he complained, 'of mortgage repayments by Christmas, on average.' That's what Prime Minister Albanese's candidate said: $400 a month. We're now at $1,400 a month—not $400 a month; $1,400 a month. If the candidate for Petrie thought it was bad under the coalition government, what does he think about it now under the Albanese government?</para>
<para>I can tell you that mortgage increases have tripled. In some cases they are over $2,000 a month. The Prime Minister was being a bit cute in saying that he would lower mortgage and electricity costs, when neither of these things have happened. The Labor candidate also promised that mortgage costs would be lower under a Labor government than under a coalition government. The reality, for those in the gallery, is that mortgages have increased seven times since this government came to power.</para>
<para>The impact of that is very real for people in my electorate like Damien in Griffin: $1,000 a month extra. Another $12,000 a year. He says he's paid an extra $460 per fortnight, or $12,000 a year. Damien says, 'It's becoming unsustainable, and action needs to take place to stabilise lower rates.' Quinton in Murrumba Downs says, 'I'm a first homebuyer, and my repayments since Labor have come in are $1,700 a month extra, or $20,400 per year.' In gross wages that's $30,000 a year, all under the Albanese government. This MPI around the government's inaction as rapidly rising mortgage interest rates are devastating Australian families and households is 100 per cent true.</para>
<para>It's not just mortgages; it's also people renting. This morning I spoke to Daryl Margetts, from Scarborough, who's worried about his grandson Daniel, who lives in Clontarf, whose rent has gone up $50 a week. This is really important because, as interest rates rise, people need to be able to put up the rent. Thankfully, they still have negative gearing. If it was up to the member for Maribyrnong or the members for Grayndler, Franklin or Rankin, that all would've went in 2019 and people would not have been able to write off the losses. Shame on the Albanese government!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition oversaw a decade of wasted opportunities and misguided priorities that left with Australia with falling real wages, cost-of-living pressures and a trillion dollars of debt without an economic dividend to show for it. They arrogantly believed they were solving this by simply being in power. They were the performing statue of politics—largely doing nothing but expecting applause for imperceptible movement. What they have to show for nearly a decade of power is leaving us with the worst cost-of-living crisis this nation has ever faced.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has been working overtime to deliver for hardworking Australian families. We've worked overtime because those opposite sat in government for nine years and did nothing. They barely moved. Australians understand we didn't create these challenges but they elected us to take responsibility for addressing them, and we are.</para>
<para>The government is tackling this cost-of-living crisis in a range of ways. We have laid the groundwork to get wages moving. We have introduced cost-of-living measures to support people with the cost of medicine and child care. We are working on fixing skilled labour shortages as well as growing the economy the right way, making us more resistant against future shocks. The government knows households are feeling the pressure. That's why our plan has been to provide targeted relief to households and to ensure that, through government programs and government spending, we aren't making a bad situation worse—no colour coding here!</para>
<para>One of the very first acts of the Albanese government was to successfully argue for the minimum wage to keep pace with inflation—an outcome which helped 2.7 million Australians and we know was against the architectural beliefs of those opposite. But what else have we already done to address cost-of-living pressures for households? On 1 January millions of Australians saw a 29 per cent drop in their PBS prescriptions, with the maximum PBS co-payment dropping from $42.50 to $30. For the first time in the 75-year history of the PBS, the co-payment for general scripts has fallen. For a family relying on two or three medications, this can put as much as $450 back into their household budget.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year more than a million families across the country will be able to access more affordable early childhood education. In my electorate of Bean alone, 6,600 families will be better off. Additionally, the childhood education subsidy for families earning $80,000 or less will increase to 90 per cent. These changes will provide household budget relief for families struggling with the cost-of-living.</para>
<para>Let's also talk about the important work this government is doing to fix the skill shortage. In the ACT students will be able to access fee-free courses at the Canberra Institute of Technology in my electorate, as the Albanese government and the ACT government signed a landmark 12-month skills agreement to address the current skill shortage. The agreement will inject more than $16.5 million into the ACT skills and training sector, with immediate support for over 2½ thousand fee-free TAFE places at the CIT this year.</para>
<para>What exactly was the former government's plan heading into the election? It certainly wasn't to have a tailored response to address the cause of this cost-of-living crisis. It wasn't to implement policies that will address labour supply. It wasn't to address expenses such as cheaper medicine or to put downward pressure on childcare fees. It clearly wasn't to lift wages. What's their plan now? To block every proposal to reduce cost-of-living pressures on families. Those opposite claim to be superior economic managers, yet all they can manage to say is no. The economy we inherited was defined by a decade of stagnant wages, flatlining productivity, weak business investment, skill shortages and energy chaos. That doesn't sound like superior economic management to me, and it was clear at the last election that the Australian people thought likewise.</para>
<para>The next budget will build on the strong work that we've already done, including assistance with energy bills, higher wages for aged-care workers and investments in the economy. We've hit the ground running; 2023 is a year to be optimistic about. Households are already seeing real and practical positive change, and Australian families are finally witnessing a government that doesn't hold them in contempt.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's very easy in this place to get caught up in the tit-for-tat politics and the backwards-and-forwards blame game. However, what I want to do this afternoon is quickly highlight the calls that I receive and the visits that I have from my small businesses and my farms across my electorate, the north-west, the west coast and King Island in Tasmania. At the moment, they are doing it very tough. For many of the small businesses, this death by a thousand cuts adds up very slowly. It's not until the end of the business quarter that those cumulative effects start to become a reality for most small-business owners. I'm not talking big small businesses; I'm talking sole traders and partnerships. I'm talking mum-and-dad businesses. I'm talking farmers, small manufacturers and general trade jobs that are spread right across my electorate.</para>
<para>At the end of the Bass they're concerned. Their main concern is the cost of going about their business and servicing their short-term finance obligations. As well as that, many are locked into rates for mortgages and longer term capital that will come off in the next quarter or the next six months. That means that they're now on unstable territory; on uncharted ground. The trepidation that they have is affecting their business confidence. Business confidence is key when it comes to small business; the way in which you operate and the way in which you interrogate the business decisions in front of you.</para>
<para>Businesses have multiple layers when it comes to these complexities at the moment. The first one, of course, is interest rates. The trend is that interest rates are rising—in fact, we've seen eight consecutive rises since this government has held office, and more will follow. When it comes to the cost of doing business, the cost of capital and the surety of capital: as interest rates go up, so to do the complexities around securing that capital and making that investment when you haven't got the over-the-horizon market indicators or the market signal in order to repay a dividend back into that capital. That's the second thing.</para>
<para>Couple those with an added increase in energy costs. On my own farm I've got irrigators going 24/7 at the moment. The energy costs of most irrigators on the north-west coast have more than tripled this season—again, eating into their bottom line but not affecting the price that they're paid for their produce. That has not been adjusted, so they've got to wear that cost. When you start talking about the harvest season and tractors, a reasonable sized tractor consumes 400 to 500 litres of fuel a day. On King Island, for instance, the price today is over $2.50 a litre for diesel fuel on the farm. There is talk. They're scared about that diesel primary production rebate being taken away from them. I can't add up the number of calls I've received over that particular issue.</para>
<para>When it comes to the introduction of increased complexity in IR legislation, red tape and green tape, these are mum-and-dad businesses that can't afford to have a separate person or to subcontract this. They've got to do it themselves. When mum or dad take their eyes away from that small business, it means that half of that business has stopped being effective—again, an added impost on our small businesses. When you start talking about insurance premiums for primary production, there has been an incredible increase. The cost of premiums has almost quadrupled in the last 12 months. The labour force issues and the price businesses have to pay in order to secure a permanent labour force are incredible. The freight costs backwards and forwards across that expensive piece of water that is Bass Strait—and add in the stevedoring costs and charges—are an impost on small business.</para>
<para>The market signals aren't there. The fight between the Reserve Bank and the government causes trepidation when it comes to securing the long-term, over-the-horizon market indicators. Debt serviceability, unsurety, the unwillingness for neighbouring or co-joined businesses in securing that capital and working together—it's all unsure. I can't help but agree with them. The lack of detail, forethought and future from this government is only exacerbating this issue.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAWRENCE</name>
    <name.id>299150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition may have had a change of leadership, but their propensity to reach for the vacuous headline completely devoid of substantive policy has not changed one iota. Unfortunately, the answer isn't as simple as a vacuous headline, and that's just it. Labor is committed to doing the hard work required because we care about anyone doing it tough. By contrast, the coalition's record is wholly one of opposing cost-of-living relief for all Australians. When we said we'd support a $1-an-hour wage rise for our lowest paid workers, the coalition said no. When we capped gas prices to help rein in energy prices, the coalition said no. And when we reformed industrial relations to fix a broken bargaining system, the coalition said no.</para>
<para>Let's cast our minds back. The paint was not even dry on the new Prime Minister's door when, on 3 June 2022, the new Albanese government recommended to the Fair Work Commission that the real wages of the lowest paid workers should not go backwards. He was already taking real and tangible steps to help Australian workers with their cost-of-living challenges. That was responsible action. Those opposite should heed the words of the Business Council of Australia, which said the following of our responsible action to get wages moving again:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A functioning enterprise bargaining system will lift productivity so employers can share the dividends of better performing workplaces with their teams through higher wages and better conditions.</para></quote>
<para>Less obstruction, more construction, from those opposite—this government hit the ground running in May last year and has been acting responsibly to assist households in addressing cost-of-living challenges.</para>
<para>Let's consider our responsible action on energy. Australians have faced serious challenges caused partly by the opposition's nine-year-long serial failure to land an energy policy. We took action. Parliament was recalled in December and passed the gas market legislation, which will save households money on their energy bills. What was the position of the member for Hume on that bill? He opposed it. He voted against it. He opposed helping Australian families faced with rising energy bills and now stands here pretending—he's not here, in fact, but when he is here he pretends he wants to help those people at their kitchen tables.</para>
<para>We are taking responsible action on education and training. Fewer Australians will need to make hard choices about whether they can afford to engage in much-needed education and training to skill up for jobs today and for the jobs of the future, because we have announced 20,000 new university places and 180,000 fee-free TAFE places.</para>
<para>Responsible action on health: we have made pharmaceuticals and other health products cheaper through the PBS. Last October, I had a very illuminating conversation with a young man named Jake back in Hasluck. Jake has type 1 diabetes. He requires insulin monitoring products and up to three other prescriptions per month for associated health issues. Labor's policy to subsidise constant glucose monitoring products and to cut the maximum cost of PBS medication will save Jake hundreds of dollars a month, thousands of dollars per year, and there are a lot of Jakes out there who are a lot better off today. It is good policy.</para>
<para>We are taking responsible action on housing. We will soon have the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, which will fund social housing well into the future and take pressure off the market. That comes after a lost decade of minimal intervention and investment in social and affordable housing. Members opposite are happy to try to take political advantage of pressures in housing, but should they not be required to explain to their electorates and to my electorate where their investments were in 2013, where their investments were in 2014, 2015 and 2016? Where were your housing investments in 2017 and 2018? What about 2019? Where were you housing investments in 2020 and 2021? What about up to May 2022?</para>
<para>Well, I can tell the member for Hume that housing doesn't happen overnight. We needed that investment back then, and we need it today. Thankfully, Labor is taking a great deal of pressure off the market now. Ultimately, that will lead to a reduction in pressure on mortgages and rents because there'll be more availability. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I might just start by making sure everyone understands what growth in real wages mean, because members of the government have been perhaps working off some old talking points, and I'd advise the whips office to recirculate the latest circumstance. You see, when inflation is at 7.8 per cent and wages growth is at 3.1 per cent, real wages are going backwards—just so you know what all that means.</para>
<para>Now, I concede that the December quarter wages growth has not been published yet. You might get lucky and wages growth might increase from 3.1 per cent to 7.9 per cent in one quarter and, if that occurs, yes, we will have real wages growth in our economy. If that herculean task is not performed, that means that right now and consistently since this government came to power real wages have been going backwards. So I think the government would benefit from reconsidering the number of times they've put on the record both in this House and in media interviews how spectacular their reforms have been in getting real wages moving, because they are going backwards at the moment, and my prediction from the hardworking people of this country is that we won't be seeing real wages growth when the December figure is released nor for many quarters into the future, because, regrettably, under this government, people's real wages and their wealth are going backwards. Why? It is because inflation is running at 7.8 per cent.</para>
<para>For those who understand inflation, it is the destruction of wealth. That is what inflation is. Inflation takes the value of something and decreases it. So, when inflation is running at 7.8 per cent, that means that the wealth of Australians is going backwards, and that hits the lowest income people in our economy the hardest, particularly retired people and people on fixed incomes. For people who provisioned for their retirement, believing that they had saved enough money to fund that retirement, when inflation is at 7.8 per cent and interest rates are much lower than that but going up, their wealth is going backwards, and that is really hurting the most vulnerable people in our community.</para>
<para>Now, mortgages are going up. Unfortunately, yesterday we had the ninth increase in interest rates, and what that means is that, for people who own a home and owe the bank money, when they refinance their mortgages, if they're not on a variable rate, those mortgages will go up dramatically. Property prices are also falling in nominal terms. In real terms, they're decreasing even more, because, of course, you've got to add inflation to the nominal reduction in house prices. So, in some markets, the value of your home has gone down by nearly 20 per cent while, at the same time, your mortgage repayments have doubled.</para>
<para>Real wages are going backwards and, of course, energy prices are the highest increasing household bill in the household budget. People are really struggling. The government had an opportunity to come in here and explain what they are going to do to address these facts and the factual situation. Instead, they talked about the previous government. Now, they're welcome to do that. They're welcome to forgo the opportunity to say what they are actually going to do to address these really significant, painful impacts on household budgets, particularly for the most vulnerable people in our society.</para>
<para>If you forgo the opportunity to point out how you're going to fix those challenges, then you're conceding that they will be continuing under your government. And that would be absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. If you're happy to allow real wages to deteriorate, to allow mortgages to go up and to allow the cost of living to spiral, and have no plan for it except to talk about the previous government, then a lot of the people in this country would be saying it's time for a new government. If you are so out of touch you don't understand how tough it is for people as their real wages are going down, their mortgages are going up, their wealth is decreasing and inflation is out of control, and your answer to those things is to talk about the last government, then that is your prerogative. However, the people of this country will reward you very poorly at the ballot box if you continue to ignore the serious and significant challenges that they are dealing with every day, including the increases to their household budgets.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just listened to 30 minutes of speeches from members opposite with respect to the motion before us, and I have not heard one single suggestion as to what else the government could and should be doing to address their so-called concern about the cost-of-living increases on families and the rising interest rates—not one! Whilst I accept that you're not in government, if you want to stand up and tell the Australian people that there are some real concerns out there, you might at least offer some alternative suggestions that we might want to consider as a parliament. But I didn't hear a single one.</para>
<para>The member for Sturt finished off by saying that if the best we can do is blame the previous government, then we should talk about what this government has been doing. I'll talk about what this government has been doing, but I'll also say this: the Australian people are smart enough to understand that part of the reason that we're in the mess we're in, in terms of the issues they raised in the course of this debate, is because of the incompetence of the previous coalition government who for 10 years did nothing to address what were foreseeable situations—including rising interest rates, which began under their watch. You saw it coming just like you saw the increase in energy prices coming, but instead of doing anything when you got that last report about energy prices just before the election you tried to sweep it under the carpet because you knew the buck stopped with your side of politics but you weren't prepared to be honest with the Australian people.</para>
<para>The Australian people understand that there are many contributing factors to the cost-of-living pressures that they are facing. They also understand that many of those pressures are global and beyond the control of this country and, quite frankly, our government and the previous government. But they also understand that when the Morrison government was in office they could have done something about it and they didn't. We are now facing the situation that we do because of that.</para>
<para>Unlike the last coalition government, which did nothing, this government is actually getting on with the job of responding, and it's done that from day one. Let me just go through some of the issues that we have tried to address from the moment we were elected to government. We successfully argued, almost on day one, for a Fair Work Commission minimum wage increase in line with inflation—something that those members opposite continuously opposed. We've introduced legislation that will drive up investment in cleaner and cheaper energy, putting downward pressure on power prices. The May budget will include direct energy bill relief for households and businesses. We are delivering on cheaper child care. In my own electorate, that means some 7,000 families will be better off. That is money that will help them deal with the cost-of-living increases that those members speak about. We are delivering 180,000 fee-free TAFE places. If that's not helping families, what is? We're expanding paid parental leave. When it comes to pensions, allowances and rent assistance, we have also increased those in line with inflation. We introduced a pensioner work bonus so that older Australians could keep more of what they earn.</para>
<para>We're also rebuilding trade relationships with countries right around the world. Can I tell you—with respect to that issue alone—in my state of South Australia the wine industry was decimated because of the actions of the previous government. It still hasn't recovered, and it's only because of the efforts of this government that things are starting to look a little bit better for the wine industry. We're also rebuilding manufacturing, which, as we heard in question time today, was again destroyed by the coalition government when they closed down GMH, because that had a ripple effect right through the manufacturing sector of South Australia. So, to the member for Sturt and others who say, 'What are we doing?', I suggest they have a close look at what we're doing, because this government, from day one, has started to do things. The problem is that, every time we bring legislation into this House, every initiative that we have brought into this House has, quite frankly, been opposed by those opposite.</para>
<para>I'll finish on this matter given that housing is such a big issue. Again, time does not permit me to go into the initiatives that this government is taking with respect to housing. But, only this morning the Property Council of Australia released their report entitled <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic"> stark reality</inline>. The Minister for Housing was there and delivered a response on behalf of the government. The Property Council of Australia complimented the minister and the government for the work that this government is doing on trying to rebuild the housing industry in this country and bringing into the market much more social and affordable housing. This government is acting, and this motion, quite frankly, is a joke.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</title>
        <page.no>78</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Immigration Detention</title>
          <page.no>78</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek to add to my answer given in question time today. I was asked by the shadow minister when the government was first informed that the instrument designating Nauru as a regional processing country had lapsed. I explained in my answer that it was on 15 December. I was a bit surprised that the member for McPherson asked that question because the member knew the answer to this question. She was personally informed two days ago in a briefing with officials that the first time the Department of Home Affairs notified my office of the issue was late in the evening on 15 December. To clarify, it was well after parliament had risen. Further, the initial advice to my office was only that the instrument had lapsed, and my department was seeking further clarification on the process to reinstate the instrument. The Prime Minister's office was informed at the earliest possible opportunity. That was the following morning.</para>
<para>I say that I'm surprised the member did not remember her briefing from yesterday, but I'm not sure I should be surprised, given that it was the member who, as Minister for Home Affairs, failed to ensure that her department had the processes in place when she was informed twice as home affairs minister in 2021 that this was due to lapse. Unfortunately, this is not—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The minister will resume her seat. Has the minister concluded her additional answer? I remind the House that, if ministers are providing additional information, they are to do it at the first opportunity and in a succinct and short manner.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>79</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Anti-Corruption Commission Legislation Joint Select Committee</title>
          <page.no>79</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Appointment</title>
            <page.no>79</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That in accordance with section 176 of the <inline font-style="italic">National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022</inline> (the Act), matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Anti-Corruption Commission shall be as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) members appointed in accordance with subsection 172(3) of the Act be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or any minority group or independent Senator in the Senate and the Government Whip or Whips, Opposition Whip or Whips, or any minority group or independent Member in the House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) in addition to the chair elected in accordance with subsection 173(1) of the Act, the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) when acting as chair, the deputy chair or other member presiding at a meeting of the committee shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) the committee:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equally divided vote, a casting vote;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) sit in public or in private;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) report from time to time; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (PJC-ACLEI) appointed during the current and previous Parliaments once PJC-ACLEI ceases to exist;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement, integrity and intelligence agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6953" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6951" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>80</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treaties Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>80</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>80</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the following reports: report 204, <inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">greement between the </inline><inline font-style="italic">government</inline><inline font-style="italic"> of Australia and </inline><inline font-style="italic">the </inline><inline font-style="italic">government of</inline><inline font-style="italic"> the</inline><inline font-style="italic"> United States</inline><inline font-style="italic"> of America</inline><inline font-style="italic"> on access to electronic data for</inline><inline font-style="italic"> the purpose of countering</inline><inline font-style="italic"> serious crime</inline>, incorporating a dissenting report; and report 205, <inline font-style="italic">J</inline><inline font-style="italic">oint initiative on services domestic regulation</inline>.</para>
<para>Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm glad to make a statement on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reports into two separate agreements: first, the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the United States of America on access to electronic data for the purpose of countering serious crime, also referred to as the CLOUD Act agreement and, second, on the joint initiative on services domestic regulation.</para>
<para>The CLOUD Act agreement will allow relevant Australian law enforcement and intelligence and security agencies to seek an order under Australian law to obtain, through a structured and oversighted process, electronic data that is required for investigating serious criminal conduct or serious national security concerns. In essence, it allows Australian agencies to seek such information directly from data-holding or communication service providing companies in the US, rather than by making a request through the mutual legal assistance framework, which is much slower and more cumbersome.</para>
<para>Under the arrangement, access orders can be made on appropriate grounds for the interception of communications, access to stored communications and access to telecommunications data. Australian agencies will be able to seek that information with respect to its citizens, and the US will be able to do the same. As one would expect, the scale and concentration of data-holding and service provision in the United States means that the CLOUD Act arrangements will certainly be utilised to a much greater degree by Australian authorities than in the reverse direction. That disparity is already evident in the respective use of the unwieldy mutual legal assistance processes.</para>
<para>In Australia's case, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, usually called the TIA Act, provides the legal framework and authority for the CLOUD Act agreement requirements, just as it does in the case of domestic access or interceptions. For the CLOUD Act agreement to be properly invoked, all those TIA requirements and protections need to be satisfied, including limitations on who may be targeted, the application of proper minimisation procedures, the various issuing requirements of orders and exceptions for essential interests that are specified in side letters to the agreement, which, in Australia's case, are consistent with our opposition to the death penalty. It's salient to note that, whereas interceptional access warrants sought for domestic application by ASIO in relation to domestic security matters can be approved by the Attorney-General, for the purposes of the CLOUD Act agreement an order requires the approval of the security division the AAT.</para>
<para>The committee could see clearly from the evidence that the current mutual legal assistance treaty process for obtaining data from United States communications service providers is cumbersome and not suited to modern communications data storage and the cloud computing environment. While the CLOUD Act agreement doesn't replace that process, it does provide a parallel and more efficient alternative for Australian agencies dealing with matters relating to serious crime or national security matters, and they are often, in their nature, urgent matters that need timely action.</para>
<para>There doesn't appear to be any question that it will substantially reduce the time involved for the acquisition of relevant data relating to the commission or contemplation of a serious offence. In the committee's view, the agreement will achieve that improved timeliness of access without compromising proper process and appropriate protections.</para>
<para>The committee examined a range of issues in that area, including the implications with respect to civil liberties, the reporting on and oversight of the use of orders, particularly orders issued at the request of the United States authorities to Australian providers—which we don't expect will occur very often—and the question of consultation with civil society during the negotiation of the agreement. To that end, the committee encourages the Australian government to be especially mindful that consultation, reporting and oversight are critical integrity elements that should be applied rigorously wherever surveillance or other incursions into privacy are involved, even when those incursions serve a legitimate purpose, as they will do under these arrangements.</para>
<para>Notwithstanding the general concerns and issues identified, the committee regards the CLOUD Act agreement as an important tool for Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies to better respond to the increasingly sophisticated tactics of criminals and those who would jeopardise our national security, but in a way that is consistent with existing domestic requirements. For that reason, the committee is of the view that ratifying the CLOUD Act agreement is in the national interest and has recommended accordingly.</para>
<para>The second report that I speak to covers the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation, a plurilateral agreement negotiated among 69 members of the World Trade Organization that aims to establish uniform requirements for service delivery authorisation processes. What does that mean? It means that, when it comes to the process by which a business or entity seeks to provide a service into another country, a group of 69 nations, including Australia, have now agreed that they will each commit to some principles and objectives to make that process user-friendly, timely and transparent. In essence, this is designed to facilitate the fair and free provision or export of services from one country to another rather than having lots of different processes, some of which are difficult, slow and obstructive.</para>
<para>Provisions in the joint initiative relate to a range of areas, including transparency when it comes to fees and application procedures, efficient processing of applications, evaluation based on clear and objective criteria, review opportunities, reasonable access to examinations where required, acceptance of electronic documents rather than requiring hard-copy documents, and the adoption of technical standards through open and transparent processes. This joint initiative represents the first time that such an agreement has included a provision that measures should not discriminate between men and women, although it is still the case that members can opt out of that provision. We hope that that isn't the case. Australia won't be, and we'd hope that the other 68 nations choose not to.</para>
<para>The joint initiative is intended to provide simple, transparent, fair and user-friendly global rules to facilitate trading services. It's notable that because Australia has been convinced of this logic for some considerable time our regulatory settings and practice already comply with the new rules. As to the benefits that might flow to Australian service suppliers from the joint initiative, the committee has previously noted in its scrutiny of trade agreements the value of independent analysis of expected impacts. Of course, it's notable in this case that Australia's major service export earners are tourism and international education. They're our two major service export earners. They both occur fundamentally within Australia and therefore within our regulatory environment. The joint initiative doesn't improve circumstances or reduce costs in relation to those sectors, for obvious reasons.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Rick Wilson</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad you said 'service' there, Josh, because coal is our largest export!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, service exports. Tourism and higher education—service exports. The value of the joint initiative is in reinforcing the importance of consistency, transparency and predictability in the services regulations. While many of the world's largest service markets, such as the United States, the European Union and Japan, have well-established processes for facilitating trade in services, the committee agreed there would be value in harmonising the processes that exist in emerging markets, including in our region.</para>
<para>Because the nature of a joint initiative is to be formed outside but alongside the WTO, there's a view that negotiations of this kind could undermine the need to resolve long-stalled negotiations in the WTO itself. But the committee is of the view that the joint initiative is a worthy agreement and on balance likely to reinforce the centrality of the World Trade Organization while creating momentum in multilateral rule making. Accordingly, the committee agreed that binding treaty action should be taken. I thank all the committee members, the deputy chair and the secretariat for their assistance in getting these reports and the inquiries beneath them done. I commend these reports to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I thank the House for this opportunity to make a short statement on these reports and acknowledge the chair as well as other committee members, such as the member for Bowman, in the House at the moment.</para>
<para>The CLOUD Act was signed in December 2021 under the former coalition government, and it's pleasing to see the continued bipartisan approach to pursuing this very worthwhile arrangement between two countries with a strong history of cooperation. Through the committee process, it was very clear that the agreement had set out to achieve a very simple goal: bring more criminals to justice in a shorter time frame for the safety of the community. The committee heard that a great need for this agreement has developed in this age of connectivity, brought about by the widespread use of the internet.</para>
<para>With all the good the internet has brought, it has also been used for illegal activity, and online communication services have been increasingly used for crime. The key problem has been access of information for Australian investigators who are investigating serious crimes committed on our shores while that information is stored on servers in the United States and vice versa. A lot of electronic data can be distributed over different services, locations and jurisdictions. In most cases, the bulk of it is in the US. Currently, investigators are relying on mutual legal assistance treaties, which involve court orders and processes before Australian investigators can access that information from private companies. This can lead to major delays, which in turn can lead to investigations not proceeding or other investigations which can be settled more quickly taking precedence.</para>
<para>The national interest analysis stated that it can take more than 12 months for data to be supplied from the US to Australian law enforcement agencies. The report highlights an important point from the NIA, which said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… if electronic evidence cannot be obtained in accordance with Australian court timeframes, this can result in charges being withdrawn, less serious charges being pursued, or a weaker case being put to the court. This can ultimately lead to lower rates of conviction and lesser sentences being imposed, if at all.</para></quote>
<para>It's a situation which leaves vulnerable victims of crime at risk and also risks the safety of the community. This agreement will lead to reduced time frames for the acquisition of relevant data relating to the commission of a serious offence by allowing investigators to go straight to the source. They'll be able to circumvent the US court process and go directly to data storage companies and obtain information, subject to relevant privacy safeguards and within certain boundaries, without engaging with the US legal system. There are countless unspeakable crimes being committed across the world with the aid of the internet. We must be doing everything we can to stop it, which is why we have provided our support for this treaty action.</para>
<para>Finally, it is important to note that, where US investigations could lead to the death penalty, Australia reserves the right to step in and not grant approval. Likewise, if the US has freedom-of-speech concerns with evidence being provided to Australia, the same provisions apply. I thank the committee for recommending that binding treaty action be taken. Briefly, on the Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation, this joint statement initiative was agreed to on behalf of Australia by the former trade minister, the member for Wannon, under the coalition government. This is an important step to reducing red tape and regulatory costs for Australian service exporters, making it easier for Australian businesses to export to the world. We know that red tape is the enemy of small business, and we should always do everything we can to reduce it. I thank the committee for endorsing this action, and, finally, I would like to thank the secretariat for its hard work on both reports and those who made submissions to the inquiries.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Human Rights Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled <inline font-style="italic">Human rights scrutiny report</inline><inline font-style="italic">: report</inline><inline font-style="italic"> 1 of </inline><inline font-style="italic">2023</inline>.</para>
<para>Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I'm pleased to table the first scrutiny report of 2023 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In this report, the committee has considered 28 new bills and 329 new legislative instruments. The committee has commented on four of these bills and three legislative instruments. In particular, the committee is seeking further information in relation to the Quality of Care (Restrictive Practices) Principles 2022 instrument. This instrument sets out who can consent to the use of restrictive practices on behalf of people in aged care when they are deemed to lack capacity to consent. The committee has a longstanding concern regarding the use of restrictive practices on persons in aged care and considers that this measure may promote and limit a number of human rights, including limiting the rights of persons with a disability to equal recognition before the law. The committee is seeking further information from the minister for aged care to assess the compatibility of this measure with these rights.</para>
<para>The committee is also seeking further information in relation to the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2022. In particular, it is seeking information in relation to the proposed prohibition of foreign persons engaging in referendum campaigning. I note that the committee acknowledged the important objective of the bill in seeking to prevent foreign state players maliciously interfering with our referendum processes. The concern relates to foreign persons living in Australia whose rights would be affected by this measure. This committee is also seeking advice as to whether the proposed amendments to remove the requirement relating to the distribution of official pamphlets has any human rights implications, and reserves the right to report further. I do note the further reports since the tabling of our report.</para>
<para>Also in this report, the committee concluded its consideration of three bills and one legislative instrument previously considered, including its assessment of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022. This bill seeks to permit the disclosure of personal information to facilitate assistance provided by the telecommunications industry, the law enforcement agency and emergency services organisations. The committee considers, that based on the additional information provided by the Minister for Communications, the proposed limit on the right of privacy in relation to a number of measures would likely be proportionate. The committee thanks the minister for her comprehensive response to its questions and welcomes her advice that the explanatory materials accompanying this bill will be updated to reflect this useful additional information. The committee has made a small recommendation to amend the bill to better reflect the minister's advice as to what personal information can be shared under the legislation.</para>
<para>Finally, the committee has concluded its assessment of the Data Availability and Transparency (Consequential Amendments) Transitional Rules 2022. These rules authorise the provision of controlled access to Australian government data by prescribing six entities as transitional Australian data service providers. In assessing this legislative instrument, the committee was greatly assisted by the additional information provided by the Minister for Finance and, in particular, the informative briefing by the National Data Commissioner and departmental officials to the committee secretariat, and we thank them for taking the time to provide this useful briefing.</para>
<para>The committee is pleased to note that many of the 251 amendments made to the legislation giving effect to this data scheme and safeguards, included in a recently introduced code, were in response to the committee's previous recommendations. The committee considers these amendments assist with the proportionality of the scheme and legislative instrument, although noting that much will depend on how the scheme is applied in practice. This is a useful example of how the committee's human rights analysis of legislation can ensure better protection of fundamental rights in legislation.</para>
<para>I would like to thank the deputy chair and all of the committee members for their participation. We have had fantastic discussions in the committee, full of robust exchanges, but always constructive and I thank all the members, and I especially think our hardworking secretariat. They are extraordinary. They have done a huge amount of work in preparing extremely high-level advice to the committee and have assisted us in our duties as the Human Rights Joint Committee. Onn that note, I commend the committee's scrutiny report 1 of 2023 to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>83</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>83</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6960" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>83</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was on a roll before I was rudely interrupted by the business of the House, so I'll try to get back into the rhythm of things. I was talking about the coalition's record of supporting government funded paid parental leave and how far that commitment goes back. In the 2010 and 2013 elections, the coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver mothers six months paid parental leave based on their actual wage. If those opposite, who today have been celebrating this legislation and their party's commitment to paid parental leave, had supported this landmark coalition policy back in 2010, Australian families would have had access to one of the most generous government funded paid parental leave schemes in the world. That scheme would have now been in place for over a decade. Imagine how many families would have been able to access that scheme over the last 10 years and how many Australian women could have benefited from that policy.</para>
<para>The coalition recognises both the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave. It's the coalition that will always be fully committed to supporting women's participation in the workforce, which, we should never forget, rose to record highs under the previous coalition government. It should come as no surprise given our record that the coalition, even in opposition, will not waver from a long-standing ambition to provide genuine support for Australian families, so we will be supporting this bill. As previously mentioned, the amendments in Labor's Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 builds on the changes to the PPL scheme originally announced by the coalition in the March 2022 budget less than a year ago. We welcome the government's plan to extend parental leave pay from 18 weeks to 20 weeks from 1 July.</para>
<para>In government, the coalition set out to create a single 20-week payment under the PPL scheme by combining dad and partner pay with the PLP. Making a 20-week payment fully flexible to eligible working parents will also see parents share the entitlement between them by as much or as little as would work with their specific circumstances within two years of their child's birth or adoption. As the increased flexibility offered by this bill may pose some administrative challenges for small and family businesses, the coalition has sought assurances from the Albanese government that amendments will not negatively impact small businesses and has requested that Services Australia will provide meaningful support and guidance to businesses to manage the scheme to minimise any possible financial impact and, further, that businesses will be made aware of the changes to the scheme well in advance of the 1 July this year.</para>
<para>Beyond expanding access by introducing the $350,000 income test previously proposed by the coalition and further increasing flexibility by allowing claimants to use their paid leave entitlement that best suits them, this will also significantly expand eligibility under the scheme. The bill also provides for an eligible father or partner to receive parental leave pay irrespective of the birth mother's income test status, residency requirements or newly arrived resident waiting period. The impact of these measures are significant both in their scope and in the sweeping nature of their impact, and, while resolute in our support, the coalition is mindful of Labor's poor record when it comes to the implementation of the many schemes they've brought about. That's something that we'll certainly be keeping an eye on as the government seeks to, beyond the passage of this bill, implement this scheme.</para>
<para>One final point, in the lead-up to the 2022-23 October budget, the Albanese government announced the scheme would be progressively increased to 26 weeks. As this bill fails to mention this change, if Labor has now shelved its proposed increase to 26 weeks, the Prime Minister needs to come clean with the Australian public. We deserve a straight answer from the government on that front about what has happened to their commitment regarding 26 weeks. I know this isn't a government famed for providing details on its policies. Those on our side have certainly been asking for a lot more detail on a lot of the government's policies in recent weeks and months. But my constituents do want to know. It's a question that's been asked by many of my constituents when I've gone door to door discussing changes to PPL. They want to know whether the proposal to extend this leave to 26 weeks is anywhere in the government's thinking for this program in the future. With that in mind, I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When my mum gave birth to me more than 40 years ago she had to return to work full time two months later. That was because my parents needed two full-time incomes to pay the mortgage, pay the bills and put food on the table. She could not afford to take any more time off work. She also couldn't be sure she would have a job to go back to if she took additional leave. My mum juggled the sleepless nights and tiredness that comes with having a newborn while having to front up to work five days a week. She struggled with wanting to spend time with her newborn while needing to earn enough money to support her young family. It was a dilemma that many working mothers of her time had to endure, because few had access to employer parental leave schemes and no-one had access to government supported paid parental leave.</para>
<para>Contrast that to the experience I had when I became a mum 35 years later. With a combination of the government's paid parental leave scheme and generous paid parental leave offered by my employer, I was able to take 14 months off to care for my baby full time. It was both the most enjoyable and the most difficult 14 months of my life. But I got to make those choices—choices about when to go back to work, choices about going back to work full time or part time. I was fortunate to be in a position where I could make choices based on what was in the best interest of my family and my son. I was able to make those choices because of the financial security provided by the paid parental leave schemes I was able to access.</para>
<para>My mum didn't get to make those choices. Her decisions were governed by our family's financial situation. I'm grateful to her and my dad for working so hard to give my brother and me the opportunities they never got. My mum is an amazing mum and I think an even better grandmother. She spends time patiently teaching my son how to write Chinese characters. Instead of reading books to him she makes up short stories to teach him about Chinese culture and history. She spends hours making his favourite meals. And I'm grateful she's been able to have that time with my son, just as I was able to spend quality time with him in his early and formative years.</para>
<para>Australia's paid parental leave scheme was introduced in 2011, a legacy of the Rudd Labor government. At the time of its introduction we, along with the United States, were the only ones in the OECD that didn't have a statutory paid parental leave scheme. So, it was a long-overdue reform. It's now become such an entrenched and important social policy that you sometimes forget there was a time when we did not have this scheme in place. It's a scheme designed to support working parents—mums and dads—and that's an important point to make here. The government's paid parental leave aims to encourage both parents to spend time with their child to encourage bonding.</para>
<para>The paid parental leave scheme aimed to meet a few key objectives, which the Productivity Commission laid out in a 2008 report: to generate child and parental health and welfare benefits by increasing the time parents spend with their children; to normalise the social value of having a child and taking time out for family reasons; to counter some of the workforce participation disincentives for new parents posed by the tax and welfare system; and to increase retention rates for businesses with reduced training and recruitment costs. Put simply, it's good for parents, good for kids, good for employers and good for the economy.</para>
<para>There are two parts to the government's paid parental leave. One is provided to the primary carer, with minimum wage paid for 18 weeks, divided into a 12-week block that is taken continuously and a six-week flexible block. The other part is for dad and partner pay, for up to two weeks of minimum pay. In total, a family is eligible for up to 20 weeks of pay.</para>
<para>But we know that this scheme isn't perfect and has its problems. Countless papers and studies, not to mention numerous submissions to the Jobs and Skills Summit, have outlined its shortcomings. Business, unions, economists and experts all know that it's not doing enough to boost productivity and participation. In order to be eligible for the current scheme, the primary carer needs to earn under $156,000. We know this rule can be unfair to families where Mum is the high-income earner and the primary carer. We know it doesn't do enough to provide access for fathers and partners and partners and we know it limits flexibility for families to choose how parents transition back to work.</para>
<para>And we know it's not the driver for gender equality that we know it could be. Research from the OECD shows that in Australia, like in so many other countries around the world, the responsibility for caring for children often falls disproportionately on women. Typically, fathers tend to remain in full-time work while mothers work part-time or drop out of work entirely. Data from the Department of Social Services indicates that because the two-week dad and partner pay cannot be taken in conjunction with other paid leave, this can make it harder for fathers and partners to take significant time off from work to care for their newborn. The cumulative impact of this dynamic is for women to remain out of the workforce for longer, for the gender wage gap to continue to widen and for the stereotype of the female carer and the male breadwinner to continue. Treasury analysis tells us that women experience a motherhood penalty, with their earnings falling by an average of 55 per cent in the first five years following the birth of a child—that is, more than half of their income is lost—whereas men's earnings are unaffected by the birth of their child.</para>
<para>This bill sets out to fix some of those fundamental problems with the Paid Parental Leave scheme. It does it in a few key ways. It combines the parental leave pay and dad and partner pay schemes into a single parental leave scheme available for 20 weeks. It expands eligibility to allow an eligible father or partner to receive parental leave pay regardless of whether the birth parent meets the residency requirements or income tests. It introduces a $350,000 combined family income limit and allows claimants to take the payment flexibly within two years of birth or adoption.</para>
<para>At its core, not only will this bill allow parents and their child to bond but it will improve gender equality. The new scheme will remove the default position of parental leave attributing to the birth mother; instead, parents will be able to decide who should lodge their first claim. This change will be combined with two weeks of leave reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis in order to incentivise parents to take at least two weeks each and to signal that caring for a new child is the responsibility of both parents. Eligible parents will have the ability to share their paid parental leave entitlements to suit the specific care arrangements within two years of the child's birth or adoption. Making the scheme more flexible and easier to share will help families to balance work and care responsibilities. It will encourage more men to take parental leave away from their jobs and, in doing so, will contribute to changing stubborn gender norms and improve gender equality.</para>
<para>We are ambitious for our Paid Parental Leave scheme. Later this year we will introduce legislation to progressively increase the Paid Parental Leave scheme to reach 26 weeks in 2026. This is the largest expansion since the scheme was introduced in 2011. The Grattan Institute has made it clear that the benefits of paid parental leave aren't just helpful for women; they are also helpful in allowing dads and partners to bond with their child, and it's helpful for children as well. The research shows that more gender-equal leave can improve family relationships by reducing parenting stress and allowing couples to build a better understanding of each other's worlds. I feel incredibly fortunate to be able to have benefited from the Paid Parental Leave scheme, a great Labor legacy, and to now be part of an Albanese Labor government working to strengthen and improve it.</para>
<para>I want do end my contribution by thanking two women who have fought tirelessly to get the Paid Parental Leave scheme implemented: Professor Marian Baird from the University of Sydney Business School, who spent decades researching and advocating for paid parental leave in Australia; and Jenny Macklin, the minister responsible for bringing this policy idea to fruition. I thank them both.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BELL</name>
    <name.id>282981</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is, of course: does the coalition support this bill, the Paid Parental Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022? And the answer is yes. We've heard from many in the coalition about their support for this very important measure. There are a few reasons for that. Primarily, the coalition supports measures that support families, especially young families and those with young children. The coalition believes in the family as the building block of society and believes passionately that, when families do well and small and family business does well, communities do well and regions and cities do well, and then so too does our great country. This is a core value of the Liberals and the Nationals.</para>
<para>That's why we also supported the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022, which passed through this place late last year. We of course took the opportunity to outline the deep flaws in that bill, which is one of the privileges of being in opposition. Those flaws included the lack of new access—places for children—for the $4.7 billion price tag to the Australian taxpayer, and the utterly disgraceful lack of detail and lack of work done by the Labor government to support a tired and undervalued workforce that has real concerns now about the government's lack of preparedness for 1 July this year.</para>
<para>That's why we are so bitterly disappointed with the Prime Minister and the Labor Party for misleading Australians by promising, before the election, to support families. 'Life will be cheaper under me,' he said. 'There will be a $275 reduction in power bills,' he said. But—newsflash—it's not, is it? Who can put their hand on their heart and say, 'My life is cheaper now than it was in May last year, under the coalition? Nobody. Inflation is at a 33-year high, and that's not bad luck. That's Labor, as they always do when in government, making the situation worse for families and the cost of living. Higher interest rates are predicted to hit approximately 800,000 mortgage holders who will come off fixed-rate mortgages to virtually double their payments under a variable rate—and that will go up further. It's an economic hot mess. Make no bones about it: every decision this Labor government is making will impact cost-of-living expenses and so inflation. Life is not and will not be easier under Albanese.</para>
<para>But, importantly, this bill extends the Paid Parental Leave scheme, or PPL measures, that the coalition put in place in March last year—another one of our good policy ideas that Labor has taken and added to. It gives both parents more paid time with their newborns to build their family unit. The scheme consists of parental leave pay, PLP, a 12-week PPL period and six weeks of flexible PPL, and dad and partner pay, DAPP, a two-week period. Financial support provided by PPL is intended to complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave and is paid at a rate based on the national minimum wage, which is currently $812.45 a week. In 2021 and 2022 the PPL schemes together cost the nation around $2.58 billion.</para>
<para>I'll just go through some of the rules, for those who might be listening at home on the ABC. There are some rules surrounding eligibility. Currently there is a work test, and the claimant must have worked for 10 of the 13 months before the birth or adoption of their child, with a minimum of 330 hours in that 10-month period, and have a gap of no more than 12 weeks between working days. There is also an income test. The claimant must have an individual adjusted taxable income, ATI, of $150,000 or less in the 2019-20 financial year, or $151,350 or less in the 2020-21 financial year, or $156,647 or less in the 2021-22 financial year. There is also a residency test. When their child is born or adopted, they must be living in Australia and have one of the following: Australian citizenship, a permanent visa, a special category visa or another temporary approved visa.</para>
<para>This bill makes amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act which the government says will make the payment more accessible, flexible and gender neutral. The bill provides amendments to extend PLP from 18 weeks to 20 weeks from 1 July. It will combine the PLP and DAPP, forming a single payment of 20 weeks that can be shared between parents, making that easier. This measure seeks to make the sharing of parental leave between parents a central part of the scheme. Two weeks of PLP will be reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis for each claimant. A claimant who does not have a partner at the time of the claim will be able to receive a maximum of 20 weeks PLP.</para>
<para>It also removes the notion of primary, secondary and tertiary claimants. Under the amendments, either parent will be able to claim the PLP first, and the bill seeks to improve gender equality by removing the default of PLP assuming that birth parents are the primary carers. Currently the Paid Parental Leave Act distinguishes between primary, secondary and tertiary claims and claimants. This bill removes this distinction by allowing fathers and partners to claim parental leave pay without requiring birth mothers to make claims.</para>
<para>Under the current arrangements, a mother must make a successful claim for PPL and then transfer the payment to her partner if she wishes to share it. This process is administratively burdensome and complex, with less than one per cent of mothers transferring some of their payment to fathers or partners in 2021. An eligible non-birth parent or partner can receive the PLP if a birth parent doesn't meet the income test or residency test or is serving a newly arrived resident's waiting period.</para>
<para>The bill expands access by introducing a $350,000 income test. To put that into context, between the 2010 and 2017 financial years the number of women with a taxable income of more than $150,000 has in fact doubled. I might point to the woman's workforce participation rate at the time, which was at an historic high of 62.3 per cent under the coalition government, and I remind those in the House that when Labor last left office it was at 58.7 per cent. We'll see how that women's workforce participation rate goes over the coming months and years. Currently families can be treated differently depending on which parent has the higher income. There could be two families, each with an identical household income, one of which is eligible because the father is the primary income earner while the other is ineligible because the mother is the primary income earner. The bill addresses this issue by introducing a $350,000 family income limit against which families can be assessed if they do not meet the individual income test, which is $156,647.</para>
<para>A family will no longer be denied access to payments just because of the income of the mother, with the introduction of a family income limit. It's expected that nearly 3,000 additional parents will become eligible each year due to this measure. This family income limit is to be indexed annually from 1 July 2024, and the individual income limit will continue to be indexed annually on 1 July. This is to complement the existing $156,647 individual income test, with single parents able to access their family income test.</para>
<para>It increases flexibility and expands eligibility to allow claimants to best use their parental leave payments in the manner that best suits them and their family. Paid parental leave will consist only of flexible PPL days. This measure allows parents to take paid parental leave in blocks as small as a day at a time, with periods of work in between if they need them, during the period starting on the day the child is born and ending on the day before the child's second birthday or anniversary of care. This flexibility seeks to support mothers to return to work whenever they wish and will benefit parents who work part time or are self-employed and wish to continue working after a birth or an adoption.</para>
<para>The bill also allows eligible claimants to take a maximum of two weeks parental leave pay concurrently, assisting parents to share caring responsibilities and also providing an opportunity for dads and partners to provide care for birth parents, supporting their health. Concurrency is limited to ensure that parents are encouraged to return to work. This bill also expands eligibility to allow an eligible father or partner to receive parental leave pay regardless of whether the birth mother meets the income tax or residency requirements or is serving a newly arrived resident's waiting period, as I outlined.</para>
<para>This bill extends the paid parental leave from 18 weeks to 20 weeks. It supports parents and children, therefore the coalition supports the extension to our measures contained in this bill, and I congratulate Labor for finally coming to the party on this very important measure for Australian families.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When I had my triplets in 1999, I had access only to unpaid parental leave. When you unexpectedly discover that you're having three babies instead of one and end up having to go on parental leave at 18 weeks instead of at 38 weeks as planned, the financial crunch is real. I was lucky that my husband worked and was able to support me and our surprisingly rapidly growing family. But for many of the women I saw at Homelessness Service, Catherine House and Vinnies, that had not been the case. In many instances their homelessness could be directly traced back to an interrupted career due to caring duties for children. This gap in employment not just impacted their immediate financial security when they had young children, just as the family expenses were going up; it also had long-term implications. For some of them, the lack of paid parental leave meant they couldn't maintain their job. This meant a gap in income and an immediate financial impact but also a loss of superannuation and career momentum that had long-term impacts on their life's journey.</para>
<para>Having to find a new job after a career gap is difficult. This financial security also impacts other life decisions such as whether to have another child or whether to leave a violent or unhappy relationship. So, when they turn up at the doors of Catherine House or Vinnies or any other homelessness service, whether they're in their 20s, 30s or 40s or part of the fastest-growing demographic experiencing homelessness—women in their 50s and over—the impact of unpaid career gaps and forced job losses is so often a major factor in why they become homeless.</para>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 implements the first step of the Albanese government's paid parental leave reforms. It expands access, improves flexibility and encourages shared care between parents. The bill is necessary because of the limitations of the existing scheme of parental leave. The current parental leave pay takes the form of an 18-week payment to the primary carer. The eligibility criteria for this system limits access for non-birth parents. It restricts parents' choice about how they structure leave days and transition back to work, and it disadvantages families where the mother is the primary income earner. The current scheme also fails to provide support for fathers and partners to access paid leave, further limiting choices for families and denying them the opportunity to be the primary carer for their children.</para>
<para>To address some of these weaknesses in the existing system, this bill replaces the parental leave pay and the dad and partner pay with a single 20-week scheme, with two weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. It introduces gender neutral claiming by removing the notion of primary and secondary claimants and the requirement that the primary claimant must be the birth parent. Essentially this change will leave it up to families to decide how they want to utilise their leave. It allows parents to take payment days in multiple blocks as small as a day at a time within two years of the birth or adoption. This means parents can use their paid parental leave to structure their working schedule around their needs.</para>
<para>The bill also introduces a more generous $350,000 family income limit, under which families can be assessed if they do not meet the individual income limit, and allows eligible fathers and partners to receive the payment regardless of whether the birth parent meets the income or residency test. Around 181,000 Australian families will benefit from the changes in this bill. Crucially, this includes around 4,300 families who will gain access they would not have been eligible for under the existing scheme. We are opening up support, choice and flexibility to more families because that's the Labor way.</para>
<para>When I attended the government's very successful Jobs and Skills Summit last September, I lost count of how many speakers raised the issue of women's workforce participation. At our local Boothby jobs and skills forum, local businesses, not-for-profit organisations and individual participants also identified the importance of tapping into the skills of women who want to return to work as part of the solution to our national skills shortage, and the importance of women being able to maintain contact with their employer as well as the importance of employers wanting to maintain access to their skilled female workforce. Paid parental leave was seen as a win-win. Leaders from industry, the public sector, NGOs and unions talked about myriad benefits that come from greater participation in the workforce for women, to their organisations and to Australia more broadly. They spoke of the untapped potential of so many women, the untapped potential in their individual lives and the untapped economic potential of a wasted resource.</para>
<para>As of the 2021 Census, there are more than 25,000 families with children living in Boothby and an unknown number of families and individuals who might be planning at some stage to have a baby. These families come in all shapes and sizes and various configurations of parents, step-parents, children and step-children, a bit like mine. This represents the diversity of Australian life. It goes a long way to explaining why this bill is necessary.</para>
<para>As the Australian family has evolved to, in many ways, become more inclusive and more diverse, so, too, must our social policies. That's why we've updated the paid parental leave scheme to make it more flexible and to make it work for more families. Paid parental leave reform like this will make it easier for more women to remain attached to the workforce when they have children. It will allow them to have more choice in their lives to shape their own futures. It will allow families to make decisions about what suits their individual circumstances but also encourage both parents to take the opportunity to be the primary carer in that special time of life of a new child. And this is key: it is also good for babies and toddlers to have the opportunity to spend quality time with both parents. It will be good for families, good for women, good for men, good for employers, good for the economy as a whole, and, of course, good for children.</para>
<para>The Albanese government has listened. The introduction of this bill into the parliament is the most significant step to improve the scheme since the establishment of the parental leave scheme by Labor in 2011. Just as it took a Labor government back in 2011 for paid parental leave to become a reality, it has once again taken a Labor government to improve it and update it to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. Strengthening our paid parental leave system reflects this government's commitment to improving the lives of working people. It will help support better outcomes for children by allowing their parents more financial independence and choice. It will help advance women's economic equality, a driving passion of mine. And, of course, it has taken a Labor government to update this scheme so that it actually reflects how Australian families live in 2023, because the needs for many in Boothby have changed since paid parental leave was first established over a decade ago. Labor is the only party in this place that accurately and responsibly reflects these changes and can channel them into policies that improve people's lives. That's what this bill does. This bill is just the first step in our reform of paid parental leave to improve the lives of Australians.</para>
<para>The changes that I outlined earlier commence from 1 July this year, but they are just a stage 1. The second stage, to be implemented by 2026, will expand the scheme to 26 weeks. This will move us closer, in a responsible and equitable way, to being global leaders when it comes to paid parental leave. The changes brought about by this paid parental leave bill send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. This government values men as carers too, and we want to see that reinforced in our workplaces and our communities. It's about getting the policy settings right so that families can make the choices that best suit them. It's about removing barriers that disallow fathers and partners to spend time at home with the children. When fathers take a greater caring role from the start, it benefits them, it benefits the children, and it benefits the mums—it benefits the whole family.</para>
<para>The government's paid parental leave reform is good for parents, good for children, good for employers and good for the economy. It gives families flexibility and choice about how they want to make arrangements for caring for their children. It's good for gender equity, enabling and encouraging men to spend time as carers during the important early life of their children; it's good for women, enabling them to maintain their link with their employer and avoid the career gap that so often tips them into poverty in later life; and it's good for employers, enabling them to maintain a link with their female employees that they have invested so much time and money and training. It's good for Australia by supporting flexibility for families and unlocking the female workforce as we face a shortage of skilled workers across all sectors. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
    <electorate>Nicholls</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. The Nationals and I support this bill because it improves fairness and flexibility. I've been through this personally, with my wife and I having our first child in 2008. Back then and previously the discussion was about maternity leave, and then we became a bit more enlightened and talked about paternity leave. I think it's great that we're now talking about parental leave.</para>
<para>It may come as a shock to some of those in the House that my wife, who's a professional in agricultural science, is actually more intelligent than me! In fact, she gave a great speech about launching a new Melbourne university initiative shortly after I was preselected as the National candidate, and the comment was made by some present, 'We've got the wrong Birrell!' I think it shows that families these days—and it is great—are often made up of two professional people or two people who are equal in the workforce with fantastic careers. Often at that stage of life you are on your journey in work because you have children when you're a bit younger, so you haven't got as much money, and the pressure is on to keep working. I would make the point that back in 2008 our mortgage interest rates were very high, and it was very difficult for us—but everything that's old is new again.</para>
<para>Many of the improvements in this bill are measures announced by the former coalition government in March last year as part of the well-received enhanced paid parental leave package of reforms. I commend the bill, but I also commend the coalition for making this commitment in the March budget. In terms of fairness, the introduction of a family income test will remove an inherent bias that was in the system. Families will no longer be denied access to payments just because of the income of the mother, with the introduction of a family income limit. It is expected that nearly 3,000 additional parents will become eligible each year due to this measure. Previously these families were excluded if the mother's wage was above the threshold—that probably would have been the case in our situation—the impact being that you could have two families with an identical household income but one family could be ineligible because the mother is the primary income earner, not the father. I think that reflects, as has been set opposite, a paternalistic attitude that existed previously, that, necessarily, the man is the breadwinner. In many families, including ours, much bread has been won by the mother.</para>
<para>Eligible non-birth parents and partners can receive parental leave pay if the birth parent doesn't meet the income test, residency test or is serving a waiting period for newly arrived residents. The bill addresses this issue by introducing a $350,000 family income limit, under which families can be assessed if they do not meet the individual income test, which is $156,000. Under the amendments, either parent will be able to claim the leave first. It allows fathers and partners to claim parental leave pay without requiring birth mothers to make a claim. That really adds fairness to what was a system that wasn't as fair and didn't look at both the mother and father as equals.</para>
<para>The bill also talks about flexibility and adds flexibility to this situation. If modern living and the past few years have taught us anything, it's that we need, and families are crying out for more flexibility in the arrangement of their life and their work life. In terms of flexibility, parental leave payments will be able to be used in the manner that best suits the family. Parents can take paid parental leave in blocks as small as a day at a time, with periods of work in between, during the period starting the day the child is born and ending the day before the child's second birthday or anniversary of care. This is a great initiative for not only families but workplaces, who can respond more dynamically and come to more equitable arrangements that suit both the workplace and the parents. It's particularly important in regional areas, because often people's employment coincides with seasonal arrangements around different agricultural practices.</para>
<para>The flexibility supports mothers to return to work whenever they wish to and will help the parents who work part-time or are self-employed to continue working after a birth or adoption. A maximum of two weeks of parental leave pay can be taken by both parents at the same time, allowing them to support each other, and it's a great experience for both parents to spend time with a newborn at the same time.</para>
<para>There are a lot of challenges around becoming a new parent, and I've experienced that twice. Certainly we had the benefit of an employer-provided maternity leave system. But this paid parental leave system is much better than that, and it allows fathers to have an involvement in the lives of their newborn children. I tried to do that as much as I could. My favourite thing was to sing to my daughter. If the House would indulge me, my favourite song to sing to my daughter was 'Golden Slumbers' from the Beatles album <inline font-style="italic">Abbey Road</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Golden slumbers fill your eyes</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Smiles awake you when you rise</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Sleep, pretty darling</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Do not cry</para></quote>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BIRRELL</name>
    <name.id>288713</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm going to sing it next time! I'll do the best I can. But I didn't know singing was permitted in the House! But the words are important, and of course the key is important, as was pointed out. But what's most important is that both parents, where possible, are able to spend that precious time with the newborn and create that bond. That bond exists for us today, and this program will make that better in terms of both parents being able to be around and being able to be together and taking financial pressure off.</para>
<para>There is a cost attached to these reforms—there always is—and the financial impact of the forward estimates is $531 million. The coalition understands both the social and economic benefits of paid parental leave. The parents benefit, the children benefit and the families benefit. It gives the families choice, and it encourages women in particular to manage their work and family commitments and encourages a return to work. We have enough trouble, particularly in regional areas like in my electorate, getting the professional people we need without putting up further barriers to women, particularly professional talented women like my wife and like so many other people entering the workforce. And we don't need barriers such as the fact that they might find it difficult if they want to have a family. So, I think there's a win-win in terms of families there as well.</para>
<para>The coalition has a strong record of supporting government funded paid parental leave. While in government, the coalition made important amendments to strengthen paid parental leave legislation. These amendments included: increased flexibility, including the last six weeks to be shared and taken any time; introducing special circumstances that allow a person to meet the work test if they have been impacted by family and domestic violence, a natural disaster or a severe medical condition; and indexation of the income threshold for the first time since the scheme was introduced. In March 2022, as part of the Women's Budget Statement, the coalition once again underlined its commitment to paid parental leave by announcing enhanced paid parental leave.</para>
<para>In summary, this is a good amendment; it's a good bill. It's going to help families in my electorate. It would have been excellent for me when we had our first child and our second child, and I hope that the families from now on can benefit. And I hope that young people move forward positively towards the career of their dreams, knowing that if they do want to start a family there is support for them to do that and that then if they wish to re-enter the workforce they can—because we so badly need those wonderful skills, particularly in electorates like mine, where we're having trouble attracting people from metropolitan areas to come up to the wonderful Goulburn Valley to work in our thriving economy. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms COKER</name>
    <name.id>263547</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to be a part of a government that is delivering on its election commitments around gender equality, closing the gender pay gap and reforming Paid Parental Leave. The reforms in the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 are an investment in women's economic equality. They will also have significant benefits for families and the Australian economy. Parents will have more time to spend with newborns: six months in total. More paid leave will ease the cost-of-living pressures for young families and, importantly, create greater capacity for parents to share parenting, build a career and earn a pay packet.</para>
<para>Challenges facing young families across my electorate of Corangamite, and across the nation, clearly illustrate the importance of this bill. I'm referring to young working parents battling to establish a home, taking on a mortgage, beginning a family and striving for a good start in life for their children. With its rapid population growth, among the fastest in the nation, Corangamite has many such families. In the latest census the largest change in population in Greater Geelong was in the 30 to 39 years age grouping, with an almost 30 per cent population increase.</para>
<para>The urban growth area of Armstrong Creek, where my electorate office is located, is now the youngest locality in Greater Geelong, with a median age of 30 years. There are similar growth areas with young families in Bannockburn, Ocean Grove and Torquay. These young families in my community, and other communities across the nation, will benefit directly from this bill's reforms. By giving more families access to government parental leave payments and providing greater flexibility in how they take leave, we're encouraging parents to share the important role of caring for their children.</para>
<para>In the process, we're advancing gender equality. The changes set out in this bill have been widely welcomed by family and gender advocates, and employer and union groups, because they know that one of the best ways to boost productivity and workforce participation is to provide more choice and support for families and more opportunities for women. In my own electorate these reforms have also been enthusiastically welcomed by people who have been advocating for modernisation of paid parental leave for years, and I'd like to thank them for their advocacy. The Albanese government has listened and it is delivering.</para>
<para>This bill is about families, gender equity and strengthening our economy. It is the largest expansion of the Paid Parental Leave scheme since Labor established the scheme in 2011. In a nutshell, the bill proposes delivering six important changes from July this year: combining the two existing parental leave payments into a single 20-week scheme; reserving a portion of the scheme for each parent to take time off after a birth or adoption; making it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers; expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test under which people can qualify if they do not meet the individual income test; increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take paid parental leave days and transition back to work; and allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment, irrespective of whether the mother or birth mother meets the income test or residency requirements.</para>
<para>This bill is just the first tranche of the government's Paid Parental Leave reforms announced in the budget. The government will bring forward further legislation to start in July 2024, progressively increasing the scheme until it reaches 26 weeks of leave in 2026, a full six months of leave. Around 180 families are receiving the payment each year, and they will benefit from this fairer, more flexible and more generous scheme.</para>
<para>The current scheme does not do enough to provide access for fathers and partners. Currently, dads take government-paid leave at roughly half the rate of mums. The scheme as it stands today is built on the gendered assumptions of primary and secondary carers, which limit parents' ability to share care. Our bill fixes that anomaly.</para>
<para>Nor does the current scheme treat families equally. The eligibility rules are unfair for families where the mother is the higher income earner. You could have two families with a household income of $200,000. One family is eligible because the father is the primary income earner; the other is ineligible because the mother is the primary income earner. That's just unfair. This bill fixes that anomaly. Under the current scheme, a father or partner who is a citizen or permanent resident can be ineligible purely because the birth mother doesn't meet the income test or residency requirements. Our bill fixes that anomaly too.</para>
<para>Currently, there are two payments from the government. Parental leave pay provides up to 18 weeks of payment and is primarily targeted at mothers, while dad and partner pay provides up to two weeks of payment to fathers and partners. Under this bill, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay will be combined to form a single 20-week payment that can be shared between both parents. This will give parents more choice and more flexibility in how they use and share care, better reflecting how Australian families want to parent. This flexible choice is especially popular among people I have spoken to within my electorate. An important feature of the current scheme is a period of leave for the exclusive use for fathers and partners in the form of dad and partner pay. The government's changes preserve this important feature by reserving two weeks of payment for each parent. By incorporating this reserved portion under a single scheme, rather than as a standalone payment, we are making sharing of parental leave between parents a central part of this reform.</para>
<para>This bill supports both parents to take leave beyond the two-week reserved period. Importantly, single parents will be eligible for the full 20 weeks. Another significant benefit of the move to a single 20-week scheme is that it will allow fathers and partners to receive the government payment at the same time as their employer-paid leave. While this is currently available to mothers under the Paid Parental Leave scheme, the legislation requires that those receiving dad and partner payments must be on unpaid leave in order to receive their dad or partner pay. Fixing this inequality removes a financial disincentive for fathers and partners to access the scheme and take time off work to care for a child. Allowing both parents to claim the government payment alongside employer-paid leave makes it easier for them to maintain their income while caring for their child. Hopefully, this will lead to more partners and dads taking leave.</para>
<para>We know that when both parents are not supported to take time off from paid leave to care for their babies mums usually work less or leave the workforce altogether to take on caring responsibility, while dads often remain in full-time work. This pattern lasts for years after the child's birth and is a key driver of the gender pay gap in workforce participation and earnings. When fathers take a greater caring role right from the start, this establishes patterns of care that continue throughout a child's life. In addition to benefits for women and their economic equality there are physical, mental and social benefits for men and women.</para>
<para>This bill improves gender equality and inclusion under the scheme by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers and allowing all eligible parents to claim the payment. Currently, mothers must make a successful claim for their parental leave pay and then transfer the payment to their partner if they want to share some of it. The process is complex and makes it difficult for fathers to take leave, even when it's in the best interests of their family. In 2021-22 less than one per cent of mothers transferred some of their payment to fathers or partners. The new, simpler claiming process will also allow eligible fathers and partners to qualify if the mother or birth parent does not meet the income test or the residency requirement. More than 2,000 additional fathers and partners will have access to the scheme each year because of this change. The shift to a gender-neutral claiming process is also important because it's more inclusive and recognises that Australian families are diverse.</para>
<para>To guard against any negative consequences for mothers resulting from the new process, the birth parent will have to approve the amount of the leave claimed by the other parent. The bill will also introduce a family income limit of $350,000, which will operate alongside the existing individual income limit, which is currently around $157,000 per annum. Parents, including single parents, will be eligible for the payment if they meet either the individual income or the family income test. With the introduction of the family income limit, families will no longer be denied access solely because of the income of the mother. This change is expected to particularly benefit families where the mother is the primary income earner—with nearly 3,000 additional parents becoming eligible each year. This change is long overdue. Between the 2010 and the 2017 financial years the number of women with taxable incomes of more than $150,000 has more than doubled. The introduction of a more generous family income test will help ensure the scheme keeps up with changing times.</para>
<para>The government is improving flexibility for families to balance work and family life in the way that best suits their needs. Currently, parental leave pay is split into a 12-week period that must be taken in a continuous block within 12 months of the birth or adoption followed by six weeks that can be taken flexibly within two years of the date of birth or adoption. And if a parent returns to work before the end of their continuous 12-week paid parental leave period they forfeit the remaining days of that period. This limits the choice for parents, particularly mothers, in how they transition back to work.</para>
<para>Under the bill's amendments, parents can take all of the payment in multiple blocks, as small as a day at a time, within two years of the birth or adoption of their child. This new flexibility will support mothers to return to work whenever they wish without the risk of losing their entitlements. This will particularly benefit the increasing number of parents who work part-time or who are self-employed to continue working after the birth or adoption. Some birth parents may wish to take most or all of the payment in continuous blocks. The legislation supports parents to do this if they wish. We know this is an important option to support physical and mental health, and it is important for mothers who do not have access to any employer-paid leave. Supporting maternal and child health and development is an important objective of the Albanese government and of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. In addition, both parents will have the option of taking the government-paid leave on the same day for up to 10 days of the payment. This will help parents share caring responsibilities right from the start and help dads and partners care for mothers to support their health and wellbeing. This scheme is flexible, it is fair and it will drive positive health, social and economic outcomes for both parents and their children.</para>
<para>In closing, I would like to recognise the former Labor minister for families, Jenny Macklin, who was an absolute champion and who was instrumental in developing Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme. This bill continues this great initiative and continues Labor's commitment to paid parental leave. It is good for parents, it is good for kids, it is good for employers and, importantly, it's good for our economy. It's the first step in the Albanese government's delivery of our central election commitment to parents and the Australian people. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity today to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2022 and to state my support, as the federal member for Petrie, for the amendments to the current Paid Parental Leave scheme.</para>
<para>The proposed changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme will benefit the families of Petrie in many ways. Parental leave policies are designed to support and protect working parents at the time of the birth of a new child or adoption of a child, and when children are very young and in the fundamental stages of connection to their parents. The availability of paid parental leave for each parent fosters a more-equal division of unpaid care and paid work, and improves on the goal of families to achieve a satisfactory work-life balance.</para>
<para>One of the core values of the coalition is the family as the indispensable forum where children are raised and nurtured, and the foundation of resilient communities and a cohesive society. Our children are our future, and I believe in giving children the best possible start in life.</para>
<para>Since 2011, under the current Paid Parental Leave scheme, Australian families have had access to government supported paid parental leave, which has significantly changed the landscape of our homes, our workplaces and our economy. The current scheme consists of up to 18 weeks of paid parental leave, which consists of 12 weeks of continuous leave and six weeks of flexible leave, and aims to help balance work and family commitments as caregivers return to the workforce. To claim paid parental leave currently you must qualify as the birth mother of a newborn child, as the initial primary carer of an adopted child placed in your care by an authorised party for the purpose of adoption or as another person caring for a child under exceptional circumstances. Claims for paid parental leave must also meet an income test, a work test and a residency rules test. Fathers of a newborn baby or adopted child are also eligible to claim a two-week period of dad and partner pay to assist during the very early stages of new life, when sleep evades the new parents. Having three sons myself, I understand that. Well-intended schedules turn into chaos and nappy changes seem to never end. Claims for paid parental leave can be made three months before the expected date of birth or date of adoption of the child and up to 40 weeks after the birth or adoption without affecting the full 18-week leave entitlement. In 2021-22, the Paid Parental Leave scheme cost around $2.58 billion and had a total of 276,641 claims of both paid parental leave and dad and partner pay.</para>
<para>The extension of paid parental leave is basically ensuring that this scheme will go from 18 weeks up to 20 weeks. If a woman is pregnant now and has been given a due date after 1 July, then these proposed changes will apply to her and her partner. This bill will combine paid parent leave and dad and partner pay, forming a single payment of 20 weeks that can be shared between parents. This measure seeks to make sharing of parental leave between parents a central part of the scheme. Two weeks of paid parental leave will be reserved on a 'use it or lose it' basis for each claimant. If, at the time of birth, a claimant does not have a partner they will be able to receive a maximum of 20 weeks paid parental leave.</para>
<para>Currently, the Paid Parental Leave Act distinguishes between primary, secondary and tertiary claims. This bill removes this distinction by allowing fathers and partners to claim the majority of parental leave pay without requiring birth mothers to be the main claimant. An example of this would be my friend Jason, who has two children. His partner was a lawyer. When she gave birth and the children were being raised, she went back to work relatively quickly because Jason decided to stay home because his partner, as a lawyer, earned more than him. That has worked well for that family. He has been the main carer while his partner has gone back to work. Flexibility for families is extremely important.</para>
<para>Families will no longer be denied access to paid parental leave if the mother's taxable income exceeds the $156,647 income test, with the introduction of a family income limit of $350,000. It is expected that nearly 3,000 additional parents and families will become eligible each year, due to this measure opening up access to parents who may be able to work part-time or are self-employed. This bill also gives increased flexibility. The measure will allow parents to take paid parental leave in blocks as small as a day at a time, with periods of work in between, during the period starting the day the child is born right up until the child is two years of age or two years after taking on the care of the child.</para>
<para>In the lead-up to the 2022-23 October budget, the government announced the scheme would be progressively increased from 18 weeks to 26 weeks by 2026. The legislation does not detail the change. If the government has walked away from that increase, it needs to come clean about why it was not included in the legislated amendments. As someone who was elected to this House in the 44th Parliament, there's the irony of the position that Labor is taking now in relation to a family income test of up to $350,000 and extending the scheme to 26 weeks. Guess what? That was the policy of the coalition government at the 2013 election in the 44th Parliament that I came into. At the time, the Labor opposition complained, moaned, groaned, said it was no good and voted against it. As a result, that never actually came into law. But that policy from Tony Abbott ensured that women, capped at $150,000, were able to get up to six months parental leave. The Labor government talk about the gender pay gap. But when the rubber hit the road 10 years ago, the coalition wanted to introduce this scheme to allow up to six months parental leave pay, capped at $150,000, and Prime Minister Albanese voted against it. That's the reality.</para>
<para>Going back to my own personal experience, my wife, Louise, and I had three sons before I came into this place. It was a special time. My eldest son is now 20 and in the Australian Defence Force. He's grown up. I remember when he was born. I remember being there at the birth and learning that midwives know what they're doing. You don't always need a doctor there. I remember giving my son William his first bath. It was an emotional time. I remember shedding a tear when that happened. My wife decided at the time, before I came into this place, that she wanted to spend time with our first child and subsequent children and breastfeed them for up to 12 months. So she wasn't able to go back to work at all for the first couple of years but then went into part-time work. We were in a fortunate position where, at the time, I was able to put additional super contributions in for her because she'd missed out on that, which was a good thing. Now my wife and I have equal amounts of super.</para>
<para>I have a staff member in my office at the moment who is expecting a child in July. As an opposition, I'm really thankful that we can support hard-working mothers like her, and not just her. One of our staff members in the Opposition Whip's office is also expecting her first child. Another staff member in the member for Longman's office is also expecting her first child. We very much appreciate these three women who work for the coalition in the jobs that they do. We want to wish them well for the birth of their child and want them to be able to come back to work when they are ready and when they make those choices. So the opposition is happy to support this bill to support these women and other women and their families and men right around the country.</para>
<para>Recently, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for women, Sussan Ley, was in my electorate for a roundtable for women. Women from the electorate of Petrie spoke about flexibility and more support and choice in their workplaces from their employers when juggling family and work commitments. Women are also seeking a government that supports stronger families, according to Dr Kahari, a local obstetrician at Redcliffe Hospital in my electorate, who was a participant in this roundtable. Her daughter was also there. She mentioned how supporting men to play an active role in the family is pivotal for stronger families. This was a point that Dr Kahari made to the roundtable and to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition about how important it is to support men. But you cannot deny there will always be an element of maternal physiological connection and dependency between a mother and child in those early stages that continues for years following birth. It will be interesting, then, to see whether the implementation of these amendments to the paid parental leave scheme in fact achieve the desired outcomes of increasing women's participation in the workforce and stimulating the economy, because a lot of women choose to stay at home. They choose to raise their children for the first few years after birth. We must remember, at the end of the day, it is a woman's choice how she wishes to raise her family, and we mustn't disparage a woman who chooses the hardest career choice of all, in my opinion, in raising children and homemaking. I'm very thankful for my own wife, who did that—that she chose to do that. We've got three great sons that have grown up brilliantly.</para>
<para>I also note what the coalition did in the last parliament. One of the things we did was catch up super payments for women that had been out of the workforce for some time. We enabled women to make additional contributions to their super so they could catch it up if they'd been out of the workforce for three or four years. Once again, this wasn't a policy that Labor really supported. It's still in place—thankfully, they haven't scrapped it yet and hopefully they don't—but they weren't very supportive at the time. Sometimes it saddens me to see a little bit of hypocrisy from the current government, from when they were in opposition to where they are now and so forth.</para>
<para>Many of the amendments we've heard about in this bill are in fact measures announced by the former coalition government in March last year as part of the well-received enhanced paid parental leave package reforms. The coalition has a strong record supporting government funded paid parental leave. I go back to the policy that Tony Abbott wanted to implement in this place, which Labor voted against. At both the 2010 and 2013 elections, the coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver mothers six months of paid parental leave of the same amount members of the government are crowing about now which will be brought in later, in a couple of years' time. If those on the other side had supported this landmark policy, Australians could have had access to one of the most generous government funded paid parental leave schemes for the last 10 years, and the wage gap between women and men would have reduced significantly. But Prime Minister Albanese, his whole cabinet and everyone else voted against it—actually, I shouldn't say 'his whole cabinet' because some of those people weren't here in that 44th Parliament.</para>
<para>While in government the coalition made important amendments to strengthen paid parental leave legislation. These amendments included: increased flexibility lasting six to eight weeks that could be shared and taken at any time; introducing special circumstances which allowed a person to meet the work test if they had been impacted by family and domestic violence, a natural disaster or a severe medical condition; allowing JobKeeper and COVID payments to count towards the work test for paid parental leave to prove a genuine connection to the workplace; and indexation of the income threshold for the first time since the scheme was introduced in 2011.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the coalition government did a lot. We support this bill. We believe in freedom, we believe in choice and this bill will help with freedom of families to raise their children. Summing up, we support the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms WELLS</name>
    <name.id>264121</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I can't begin to describe how empowering it is for families in my electorate of Lilley to finally have a government who recognises paid parental leave as the critical social and economic policy it is. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy, introduced by the Gillard government in 2011. In 2011 this policy made history for mothers and fathers, their employers and their children. More than 10 years on, the Albanese government knows that paid parental leave is still vital for the health and wellbeing of parents and children. Simply put, it allows women to stay connected to their jobs. It allows fathers and partners to spend more time with their children and create a lasting bond. We know that investing in paid parental leave benefits our economy, and that gender equality and economic reform go hand in hand.</para>
<para>Modernising paid parental leave was one of the most frequent proposals raised at the Albanese government's Jobs and Skills Summit in September. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all agree that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice, more flexibility, more support for families and more opportunity for women. A decade since paid parental leave was introduced in this place, it is well past time to re-evaluate how fit for purpose the scheme is. The current scheme does not do enough to provide access to fathers and partners, and it limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back to work. Flexibility is crucial for modern families functioning well in today's economy. The eligibility rules also make it unfair to families where mothers are the higher income earner. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 introduces a range of important structural changes that many expectant mothers and fathers in my electorate of Lilley have been asking for for a very long time.</para>
<para>From 1 July this year, the Albanese government is delivering six key changes to modernise paid parental leave. This bill combines the two existing payments into one single 20-week scheme; reserves a portion of the scheme for each parent to support them both to take time off after a birth or adoption; makes it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers; expands access by introducing a $350,000 family income test, under which people can qualify if they do not meet the $156,647 individual income test, which increases flexibility for parents to choose how they take paid parental leave days and transition back to work; and allows eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the mother or the birth parents meet the income test or residency requirements.</para>
<para>Nationally, 181,000 families will benefit from the changes in this bill, including around 4,300 parents who will gain access who would have been ineligible under the current scheme. With 2,206 families in Lilley receiving paid parental leave in the last year, I know that these changes will be very welcome to the north side of Brisbane.</para>
<para>For too long, our society has not valued care enough. We have not placed enough value on the role of care in our community and the work of those that provide care, both paid and unpaid. Our failure to place a high enough value on care can be seen in our homes and in our workplaces. Aged care is an industry where more than 85 per cent of workers are women who perform demanding and skilled work in a high-pressure environment, yet have been historically underpaid. The pay rise our government fought for will mean, for the very first time, that aged-care workers on an award wage will be able to earn more than $30 per hour—a pay rise that will help close the gender gap.</para>
<para>The Albanese government values both men and women as carers, and we want to see that reinforced in workplaces and communities throughout the nation. The Productivity Commission found that incorporating paid leave for fathers and partners in paid parental leave schemes can help reduce the pressures on parents of caring and working. The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating care responsibilities and parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Last year, Emma from Geebung wrote to me:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I currently earn approximately $160,000 a year, and my husband earns approximately $70,000. When we have a baby and go on leave, we will not qualify for paid parental leave. But if our salaries were swapped, and I earned the lower salary, then I would qualify.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This policy is outdated and unfairly impacts families where the mother is the primary breadwinner for the family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am appreciative of having paid parental leave in our country, but I think we could improve on what we have in the name of equality.</para></quote>
<para>Well, Emma, we hear you and, more importantly, we are taking action.</para>
<para>These paid parental leave reforms will help women across Australia, like Emma, who are thinking about having a family but are worried about the financial roadblocks ahead. They will help women, like Emma, who need economic security in a changing environment. It will help to close the gender pay gap by levelling the playing field for unpaid care. It modernises the paid parental leave scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed since it was established over a decade ago. It's good for parents, it's good for kids, it's good for employers and it's good for the economy. The Albanese government is delivering on our mandate to renew Australia's economy and the social infrastructure that supports it. We are improving our health and aged-care system, making child care more affordable and tackling the rising of cost-of-living so that families aren't scraping by and living from pay cheque to pay cheque.</para>
<para>Today, we are modernising the paid parental leave scheme to reflect how Australian families and their needs have changed since it was established over a decade ago. Labor has never stopped fighting for Australian families, and today we have the power to make the change that we have been fighting for.</para>
<para>I congratulate the Minister for Social Services for her tireless advocacy and work on this bill, and I proudly commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, which will amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. This bill modernises the paid parental leave scheme, which began over a decade ago and which, in its current form, provides 18 weeks leave for parents taking leave and a dedicated period of two weeks leave for dad and partner pay. This scheme benefits between 250,000 and 300,000 parents a year. This bill will combine the 18 weeks and the two weeks of DAPP, forming a single payment of 20 weeks that can be shared between parents, although two weeks will still be reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis. But, if there is only one parent, that parent can, if eligible, claim the full 20 weeks.</para>
<para>The bill also removes the somewhat giddying reference to primary, secondary and tertiary claimants, recognising that carers are not constrained to biological parents. As a ferociously proud step-parent—or in the minds of my stepchildren, sometimes just ferocious—this is indeed a most welcome evolution for my kind. The bill also removes the requirement that mothers make a claim for PPL. Fathers or other parents may make the claim, and the awkward arrangement that mothers must apply and then choose whether to share the paid leave with the father is also gone. The bill introduces a family income limit of $350,000, indexed from 1 July 2024, recognising that, in some families, the mother earns more than the father or other partner with caring duties and certainly more than the existing $156,000 limit. It also means a single parent will be assessed against the family threshold of $350,000. It is worth reiterating at the outset, as the member for Deakin did yesterday in his second reading contribution on this bill, that the coalition supports it. It picks up many of the amendments which the coalition proposed back in March 2022. Overall, it creates a much more flexible scheme, as had been conceived in the coalition's proposed amendments in the Enhanced Paid Parental Leave package of reforms.</para>
<para>There are, however, some things that this legislation cannot address, which is attitudes towards parents and particularly men—fathers and carers—who take leave to look after their children. Like many in this place, I had the precious opportunity over the summer break to plough into books and reading, and one of them was the cracking read, <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Wife Drought</inline> by my friend Annabel Crabb, published back in 2014. <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Wife Drought</inline> is indeed a wonderful read, contemplating both the individual, social and economic benefits and the broader societal pros and cons of stay-at-home partners and parents. The tougher the job, it seems, the greater the benefit to the worker of having a partner who can spend more time at home looking after children, managing the chores and logistics of the household, ensuring there is food in the fridge, booking the summer holidays, ensuring that homework is done and handed in, that parent teacher nights are signed up for and that books, stationery and new shoes are ordered in time for the new school year. I'm sorry: I have digressed into a personal guilt list.</para>
<para>Crabb's book starts in its early pages with the story of a fictitious 'Jane' and 'Jeff' and uses them to explain the ongoing pay gap between men and women in like roles. As Crabb explains in her book:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If she works for 40 years, Jane is likely—if things go according to the average experience—to earn a lifetime total of $2.49 million. But if you take a second graduate and call him 'Jeff' and give him exactly the same qualifications as Jane and bless him with the same degree of averageness, he ends his forty-year career with a lifetime total of $3.78 million.</para></quote>
<para>Crabb kindly does the maths for us, explaining that that amounts to a $1 million penalty for just being a woman. Crabb then goes on to examine the economic hit of having children, at least for mothers. I quote from page 97, although who knows what page it is when you are reading it on a Kindle:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Children change things for both men and women. In Australia, an average 25 year old man can expect to earn a lifetime total of $2 million over a forty-year working life, if he doesn't have children. If he does have children, however, this figure is bumped up to $2.5 million.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">For women, though, parenthood exerts the opposite effect. A childless woman can actually expect to earn just about as much as her childless male counterpart—$1.9 million over the course of her forty years at work. But if she has babies, that total dips to just $1.3 million. She will earn $600,000 less than a childless woman, and a full $1.2 million less than a father.</para></quote>
<para>I suspect some things have not changed terribly much since 2014, when some 60 per cent of families had a father working full time and a mother working part time, and only three per cent of families had a mother working full time and a father working part time—although this may not be true, or at least as true, anymore. There may have been a silver lining to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the much-altered way it made us live our lives, especially those of us in Melbourne, who endured one of the longest lockdowns in the world, with more than 260 days in our fat pants and ugg boots, working from the kitchen table. Over the COVID years, anecdote would tell you, household chores were more evenly shared. Both parents were home more often than not, albeit that, in some cases, working in the laundry meant using the ironing board as a stand-up desk, with the door closed to noisy homeschooling.</para>
<para>It seems not just to be anecdotal. In its submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on this bill, the Australian Human Rights Commission noted that 13 per cent of all paid primary carers leave was taken by men. While that doesn't sound like much, it's a doubling of the mere six per cent recorded in 2020. Maybe, just maybe, the pandemic taught us to share the load, both in terms of parenting and, I suspect, in terms of maintaining the household. I have already been onto Annabel about writing <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">Wife Drought</inline><inline font-style="italic">, </inline><inline font-style="italic">Pandemic Edition</inline>.</para>
<para>Other submissions to the Senate inquiry which is currently on foot highlight the potential economic gain to the nation of getting more women into the workforce, or indeed more men into making the school lunches. The Australian Human Rights Commission argues, in its submission:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rebalancing work and care responsibilities between partners would result in a reduction in the gender pay gap, higher GDP through increased female work participation, and would ultimately lift economic welfare.</para></quote>
<para>That potential GDP dividend is significant. Deloitte argued, in its<inline font-style="italic"> Breaking the norm</inline> report, that an additional $128 billion would be added to the Australian economy by adding 451,000 additional full-time employees. Chief Executive Women, in their submission to the Senate legislation committee, estimated that halving the workforce participation gap between men and women would represent an additional 500,000 full-time skilled workers with post-school qualifications. CEW also estimate that increasing women's working hours by two per cent alone would add $11 billion to Australia's GDP.</para>
<para>My suspicion in this space is that, when we talk about paid parental leave and family responsibilities, we need to talk about men as much and as often as we talk about women. We need to encourage, normalise and celebrate men taking up the tasks of parenting and, in some cases, indeed, the lion's share. In political discourse, we need to stop saying 'women' and 'paid parental leave' in the same sentence all the time. I know it's important—it's very important—but it's important for men too, and, above all else, it's important for their children to know their fathers.</para>
<para>So it's not just paid parental leave we must facilitate but also flexible working hours, in the hope that it makes it easier for both men and women to share parenting and household responsibilities. No, I don't suggest everyone should be at home, beamed into the office from the ironing board, but we do know, from studies elsewhere, that allowing employees some flexibility about where and when they work makes them both more productive and more useful at home.</para>
<para>An expectation of more flexible work might also go to reversing the somewhat bizarre trend identified in Crabb's book, one which, I suspect, rings a bell in the mind of every woman in this building, and certainly in this chamber. Annabel found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… when a woman earns more than two thirds of the total household income, she starts to increase her unpaid work at home.</para></quote>
<para>Let me say that again in another way. If a woman takes on a part-time job, she tends to decrease her work in the home, albeit marginally. But, if she starts to earn significantly more income than her partner, she will actually do more unpaid work at home. Anyone who has read of Maggie Thatcher's infamous cooked dinners for her cabinet or Simone Veil's insistence that she always made tea for her husband at home knows exactly what I'm talking about.</para>
<para>Again, in her hilarious treatise on Australian family life, Crabb refers us to a study by Janeen Baxter interpreting the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, known to most of us in this place as the HILDA Survey. The study found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">One explanation is that we have such a strong male breadwinner culture in Australia that in those households women are, if you like, re-asserting their gender identity by picking up some of the housework that's left over.</para></quote>
<para>Let us all, not just here but beyond these walls, in the private sector and elsewhere, think beyond the boundaries of this bill to what we can do to create and sustain a more gender-equal nation, not just in parenting, earning, cleaning up or being accountable. To be fair, for today, this is a good start.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. This bill implements the first tranche of the Labor government's Paid Parental Leave reforms announced in the 2022-23 October budget and will commence on 1 July this year. The bill reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, support better outcomes for children and advance women's economic equality.</para>
<para>It was a former Labor government in 2011 which introduced the current Paid Parental Leave scheme. It was an important and progressive Labor policy which gave every family with a new baby more choice, greater security and better support. While that has served our communities well, families and their needs have changed in the decades since.</para>
<para>The scheme as it stands today is built on gendered assumptions of primary and secondary carers, which limit parents' ability to share care. Our bill fixes this. The eligibility rules in the current scheme are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. Our bill fixes this. Under the current scheme, a father or partner who is a citizen or permanent resident can be ineligible because the child's birth mother doesn't meet the income test or residency requirements. Again, our bill fixes this. Our amendments represent the biggest expansion to the Paid Parental Leave scheme since its inception in 2011.</para>
<para>Improving paid parental leave is critical reform. It's critical for families. It's critical for women. It is critical for our economy. The six key changes that will come into effect from 1 July 2023 are: combining the two existing payments into a single 20-week scheme; reserving a portion of the scheme for each parent, meaning they can both take time off work after a birth or adoption; making it easier for both parents to access the payment by removing the notion of primary and secondary carers; expanding access by introducing a $350,000 family income test which families can be assessed under if they exceed the individual income test; increasing flexibility for parents to choose how they take their leave days; and allowing eligible fathers and partners to access the payment, irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements.</para>
<para>These changes are the first stage of the Labor government's reforms and lay the foundation for an expansion to the full 26 weeks of paid parental leave by 2026. That means we will have a full six months of paid parental leave at that time. Across Australia these changes will benefit around 181,000 families each year, including around 4,300 people who would not have been eligible under the current scheme but will gain access after the changes. In my electorate of Newcastle, more than 2,000 families will benefit each year from the paid parental leave amendments in this legislation. I'd like to acknowledge those in my electorate who have contacted me to advocate for the expansion and improvement of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. I want to say to you that the government has listened and, even more importantly, we're acting by implementing these important reforms in the parliament.</para>
<para>The Albanese Labor government is committed to achieving economic equality for women. We know that, if done right, paid parental leave can be a driver for advancing gender equality. A key driver of the gender pay gap is the disproportionate amount of unpaid care and work that is performed by women. We know what happens when both parents are not supported to take time off paid work to care for their babies. Often it is the mum who works less or leaves the workforce altogether or takes on caring responsibilities, while the dad remains in full-time work. After the birth of a child, it's estimated that women reduce their hours of paid work by around 35 per cent for the first five years. By contrast, men's hours of paid work drop in the first month of parenthood but then return to previous levels. This pattern persists for years after the child's birth, and it is a key driver of the gender gaps in our workforce participation and earnings.</para>
<para>This is not an attack on men. We know that many dads want to take additional time off work following the birth or adoption of a child. We see this in the increasing number of fathers taking up parental leave in the private sector. It was very slow to start, but the increasing numbers we are seeing in the private sector are very encouraging. But if we are to close the gender pay gap and support gender equality, we must have systems in place for mothers to return to the workforce and for fathers to take on more unpaid caring responsibilities. A successful paid parental leave scheme is an important mechanism to achieve this. This government wants to establish systems that support dads and non-birth parents to share the load of caring responsibilities because we know that when they do it benefits everyone. The changes in this bill send a clear message that the government values men as carers too.</para>
<para>The current scheme does not treat families equally. The eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. You could have two families with a household income of $200,000. One family is eligible because the father is the primary income earner. The other is ineligible because the mother is the primary income earner. Our bill fixes this most discriminatory part of the current scheme. I know there are many families in my electorate who will be particularly pleased to see this change.</para>
<para>The bill will introduce a family income limit of $350,000, which will operate alongside the existing individual income limit of $156,647 per annum. Parents, including single parents, will be eligible for the payment if they meet either the individual income or the family income test. This change is expected to particularly benefit families where the mother is the primary income earner, with nearly 3,000 additional parents becoming eligible each year as a result of this change. This change is long overdue. Between the 2010 and the 2017 financial years, the number of women with taxable incomes of more than $150,000 has more than doubled. The introduction of a more generous family income test will help ensure the scheme keeps up with the times.</para>
<para>This bill supports families to make decisions around the division of paid and unpaid care within their household so parents can use their weeks in a way that works for them. Currently, if a parent returns to work before the end of their continuous 12-week paid parental leave period, they forfeit the remaining days of that period. This limits the choice for parents, particularly mothers, in how they transition back to work. Under these amendments, parents can take all of the payment in multiple blocks, as small as a day at a time, within two years of the birth or adoption of their child. This flexibility will support mothers to return to work whenever they wish without the risk of losing their entitlements. This bill will also allow both parents to access leave on the same days for up to 10 days of the payment. This will help parents share caring responsibilities from the start, and it will help dads and partners care for mothers as they recover from the birth.</para>
<para>Currently, there are two payments from the government: parental leave pay, which provides up to 18 weeks of payment, is primarily targeted to mothers, while the dad and partner pay provides up to two weeks of payment to fathers and partners. Under this bill, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay will be combined to form a single 20-week payment that can be shared between both parents, with two weeks of payment reserved for each parent. Importantly, single parents will be eligible for the full 20 weeks.</para>
<para>Evidence from across several countries clearly indicates that the most successful parental leave schemes operate when the provisions encourage men to take it. This will give parents more choice and flexibility in how they use and share care, better reflecting how Australian families want to parent. The changes in this bill send a clear message that parenting is an equal partnership. They also allow fathers and partners to take the government paid leave at the same time as employer-funded parental leave. This is not an option for fathers and partners under the current dad and partner pay rules, where the legislation requires that those receiving dad and partner payments have to be on unpaid leave in order to receive their dad and partner pay. These changes will further incentivise dads and partners to take time off from paid work.</para>
<para>Modernising paid parental leave was one of the most frequent proposals raised by participants at the successful Jobs and Skills Summit in September last year. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support to families and more opportunity to women. I am pleased that our changes have been widely welcomed by family and gender advocates and employer and union groups, including the ACTU, the Business Council of Australia, the Parenthood, Minderoo's Thrive by Five foundation, Chief Executive Women and the Equality Rights Alliance. I also want to take this opportunity to recognise all of those who have contacted my electorate office advocating for the expansion and modernisation of paid parental leave. These reforms are in no small part due to your advocacy, and we remain indebted always for that.</para>
<para>Not only will our changes help families better balance work and care but they will also support participation and productivity over the longer term, providing a dividend for the Australian economy. We also acknowledge that this is not a set-and-forget model. The government is committed to continuously improving the paid parental leave scheme to support gender equality and women's economic security.</para>
<para>Legislation on the second tranche, the expansion to the full 26 weeks, will be introduced following consideration of advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce. This task force, chaired by Sam Mostyn AO, was established by this government to provide independent advice on a range of issues facing women in Australia. This task force will examine options for an optimal PPL model to improve women's economic outcomes and deliver support and flexibility for families. This will include the optimal number of weeks parents can access together as well as how to encourage more equal sharing of leave, including the provision of 'use it or lose it' weeks.</para>
<para>The paid parental leave scheme is critical reform. I'm delighted this is before the Australian parliament. I'm delighted there is multiparty support for these amendments, which is right and proper. It is absolutely proper not only for a government with 52 per cent of its ranks comprised of women who have much lived experience of this scheme but also for all of us who are listening to our electorates. This has long been called for. These amendments will mean we'll have a flexible, fair and positive outcome for Australian families. It will help drive positive health, social and economic outcomes for parents and their children. I am very pleased to rise and support these amendments. They've been a long time coming, and I look forward to being able to vote positively for these reforms today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TINK</name>
    <name.id>300124</name.id>
    <electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the government's Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. I welcome the government's goal of improving families' access to government payments, providing parents with more flexibility in how they take leave and encouraging them to share care. Improving and driving gender equity is vital to both the wellbeing of our society and the success of our economy. As a mother from North Sydney recently said to me: 'Being a full-time carer for a young child is such an undervalued role in society. It's an enormous undertaking to raise a healthy, happy, kind child with both parents working—which you both have to do when you live in Sydney.'</para>
<para>I am hugely supportive of an improved paid parental leave scheme in Australia, and I welcome these reforms. However, I think we can and must aim higher. I believe courage and long-term vision is what we should always strive for. Ultimately, 26 weeks should be set as a minimum length of paid parental leave, increasing to 52 weeks based on the Scandinavian shared-care model. On average, families in the OECD are typically entitled to over 50 weeks of paid leave; that's 2½ times more than what we offer here in Australia. In Finland, new parents each have access to seven months paid leave. Policies such as these have been linked with better development outcomes for children and support a more balanced division of labour between two-parent families.</para>
<para>I recently surveyed my electorate of North Sydney, and 75 per cent of respondents indicated to me that they felt the time they had off for paid parental leave was too short. We also know from international experience that the fastest way to address any gender gap is to introduce shared paid parental leave. As the Grattan Institute has noted in a recent report, greater sharing of child care is one of the best ways to improve women's economic security.</para>
<para>In the existing paid parental leave scheme, 18 of the 20 weeks are allocated to the primary carer whilst the remaining two weeks are allocated to dad and partner pay. Reflecting on that for a moment, the mere fact this pay is being referred to as 'dad' or 'partner' pay immediately relegates the father or the second parent in a parenting situation to the lesser of the two carers. The North Sydney community has told me it's a great idea to let families decide how to use the available support in a way that works best for them. It's about enabling choice—a choice for families to determine what is best for them.</para>
<para>In addition to shared care improving the choices for individual family units, it also has a broader societal impact. As a constituent so eloquently put it: 'I think sharing it is critical. Men need greater incentives to pause their careers, even if only for a few weeks. And women need to be free of the patriarchal assumption that they're better at the at-home piece and less likely to be able to support the family financially. Families who genuinely want to share the parenting load need shared leave.'</para>
<para>One glaring gap remains in these reforms. The Paid Parental Leave scheme does not attract the superannuation guarantee. In combination with the current Australian gender pay gap of 19 per cent on average and the fact that mothers usually return to work part-time after having children, this is one of the major factors contributing to the current situation where Australian women retire with 47 per cent less super than men, on average. Their accumulation of superannuation savings is interrupted while being on paid parental leave, which is commonly then extended by several months of unpaid parental leave. This is exacerbated on return to work with women commonly re-joining the workforce on a part-time basis after their parental leave. The inequality that occurs during parental leave follows the primary carer, usually the woman, throughout her career into her retirement, creating significant inequalities in retirement incomes. One hundred per cent of the North Sydney constituents who I heard from indicated that they would like to see superannuation payments added onto paid parental leave payments. This bill is a missed opportunity in that regard, and I hope to see the government progress this soon.</para>
<para>Along with paid parental leave improvements, we need to ensure that families have access to quality and affordable care and education to allow those who wish or need to return to work to do so. This means the provision of not only affordable but also accessible early childhood education. It's clear that the families in North Sydney face hardship when it comes to child care and returning to work. One constituent shared with me: 'I've been on a waiting list since my son was four months old. I've been waiting for that day care spot. We have decided to use a nanny, use family and have split-days off. My son is nearly one, and it's been financially challenging, especially as we've also been trying to buy a home in Sydney.' The reality is parental leave policy settings have a significant and wide-ranging impact on families, children, women, the economy and, ultimately, society as a whole. In the words of one of my constituents: 'We need to fix this. It's an essential gender equity issue.' I couldn't agree more.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The bill before us, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, is quite possibly one of the most important bills that we could be considering in this parliament when it comes to gender equality. It recognises that we need to increase paid parental leave—something that has been called for for quite some time—so that mums have more time with their newborns. That is a good thing.</para>
<para>What this bill does, and what I will focus on in my contribution, is remove gender. It says to families that mum or dad—either parent—can have access to this government entitlement. This is critical if we want to talk about gender equality, if we want to talk about the informal work that occurs in homes. What tends to happen on the journey is that when families find out they're going to have a child—and it's not just because I've been through this recently; any family will tell you this—they make decisions about who will take time off, based on what their entitlements might be and what their position at work is. In the majority of cases, because it is the way our laws are set and because it is the way entitlements are organised, it is the woman who takes off the longer period of time. Whether they be people working in my office—I have one staff member who is literally about to go on maternity leave—or in many other workplaces, it's the woman who tends to take off the longer period of time, because the rules state it must be that way. Even with our own staff, if one of our male staff members right now were to have a child, they would only be entitled to two weeks, but a woman having a child would be entitled not just to paid parental leave in accordance with our enterprise bargaining agreement but also to the government entitlement that we're extending in this bill.</para>
<para>What is good about what we're doing today not just for our staff but for all families, for all men, is that we're saying: 'In your family, have the discussion. Does it work for you? We encourage you to take more time off when your child is born.'</para>
<para>One of the things that I hope happens by saying it's a family's choice which parent takes time off, whether it be the full amount, part amount or shared amount, is that it will encourage the corporate sector and employers to do something similar. The fact is that a lot of men in Australia are only entitled to the two weeks minimum. And what are two weeks? Anyone who's had a child knows that, in those first two weeks, when you get to the end of it, you ask yourself: 'Should I be returning to work? I'm not sleeping at the moment; we have a newborn.' People are already concerned about returning to work. If your partner has had to have a Caesarean, technically they're not supposed to drive for six weeks. Yet, currently in this country we expect them to return to work after two weeks. Some employers have different arrangements.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge corporate Australia's efforts to encourage men or non-birth partners to take more time off. Good on them for doing so because there was no legal requirement. I want to congratulate and acknowledge the unions and the workers who stood up and bargained for that entitlement so that men or non-birth partners could have that extra time off when they have a newborn or an adopted child enter their lives. It is great to see this reform come forward and address that.</para>
<para>Some of the early divisions of labour in the home of non-paid work occur when a child is born, and the data reflects this. Before children enter a house, the gender of housework can be quite even. But once a child enters the home, women tend to pick up more of that work. Part of that is due to the culture and the challenges we have, but part of it's due to policy design. Once you get three months into your maternity leave, if you're the parent at home, you tend to be the one who puts the washing on while your partner is at work; you tend to be the one who does the cleaning, in and out, while the kids are sleeping; you tend to be the one that picks up all that domestic work. Quite often, people will ask, 'Are you going to enjoy your maternity leave?' If you ask a mum who's on maternity leave, and she'll say, 'What do you mean, I haven't stopped working; I'm working just as hard at home.' But when that mum returns to work, she continues to do that domestic work.</para>
<para>I'm hoping that one of the consequences that come out of this is that, if we're able to share the workload of raising children in the early days, more men can spend time at home with their newborns, which might keep that gender balance happening at home when it comes to unpaid domestic work, because the burden has fallen to women. What I like about this bill and what it does is that it makes it a choice for families. It actually says: what's in the best interest of your family. As the member for Newcastle pointed out, currently, if a male primary breadwinner chooses to go back to work, the woman who becomes the primary carer is entitled to paid parental leave under the government system. But if it is a woman who is the primary income earner who wants to return to work, her partner is unable to access the same entitlement. This bill removes that discrimination. It says, 'What works best is your family's choice—one or the other, or share.' But it is good that it is a 'use it or lose it' arrangement, which will encourage families to use this entitlement in the first period with their newborn.</para>
<para>I agree with some of the comments raised about needing to do more when it comes to accessing the next stage once the paid parental leave has finished. It is hard to find childcare places at the moment. Our government has inherited a horrible mess in the early childhood education sector. One of the biggest stresses for a lot of women at the moment wanting to return to work after their paid parental leave is being able to access childcare and having that childcare place. In my own community of Kyneton, I met with a mum's group. Some of them had deferred going back to work. They had tried to extend their paid parental leave into unpaid parental leave because they couldn't find a childcare place.</para>
<para>We have had a bit of a baby boom in central Victoria. We are bucking the trend of the rest of Victoria when it comes to the pandemic. Believe it or not, people assumed there were more babies born during the pandemic. There weren't. There was actually a slight decline in the birth rate, except in Bendigo and central Victoria. We knew that that was coming based on the nature of who was moving into the town. If you build a bigger hospital, employ more people at the bank and grow mining underground, you are going to attract younger people and families, and that's what's happened. We've had a growth in our birth rate. But that has presented a challenge when it comes to child care. Being able to find a place for a newborn, a toddler or someone who is under 18 months of age has been a challenge.</para>
<para>I want to acknowledge that that is something our government is working at. The cheaper child care bill will make child care more affordable. More importantly, the Fair Work amendments that were moved through at the end of last year will allow our educators to bargain for better wages, and hopefully that will attract more educators back into child care. One of the key reasons why there are such long waiting lists for younger children in early childhood education is that centres can't open rooms. They've got the space but not the educators. So it's an area that we're looking at and hoping to address sooner rather than later. I want to acknowledge the work that the sector, the government and the unions are doing to really try and address that.</para>
<para>Part of the bigger plan and the bigger focus that we have to have when we talk about women, work and paid parental leave is making sure that we are more family friendly and making sure that we do have that support in the early years. We kind of know what the plan is once children start primary school, because we've had a formal education system for quite some time. But we don't quite have the policies right yet for children under five. We are trying to turn around and change culture and change history, and that is one of the things that this bill does. It actually acknowledges for the first time that it isn't just the woman's responsibility to stay at home with young children. It acknowledges that we want to encourage men and women and families to make choices based upon what is in the best interests of that family unit. That choice could change between children—between the first child and the second child. For the first child it might be mum who stays at home. For the second child it might be dad who stays at home, depending upon where they're at at that time.</para>
<para>I really want to acknowledge the dads who have spoken to me—not just since I became an MP but before—about this issue and about how they haven't had the opportunity to really bond in the same way as their partners. I also want to acknowledge the dads who kind of swam against the tide, took time out, took that step to be at home more and gave up work to be there to help raise their little people, because they really have been some of the trailblazers to help set the agenda about what more we need to do.</para>
<para>For any woman in this place, including me, who's had children, our partners are the ones who have really helped us to be able to keep doing what we do. I've got two little people. I'm hoping that they're in bed now, at ten to seven. I don't know; I'm here. But they're at home with their dad in Bendigo this week, and the dinner, bath and bed routine falls to dad. That's just the life if you're a mum working full time, or if you're a dad working full time. If you're trying to balance that routine at home, the ability to have more employers who recognise that we want flexibility in workplaces is important.</para>
<para>The reason this bill has come before the parliament now is for us to deliver on a big commitment that we made at the election: that we wanted to be a modern Labor government that recognised that modern families need changes. Increasing the PPL was one of the most frequent proposals raised by participants at the Jobs and Skills Summit last September, and it is why the Albanese government really listened and continued to consult and brought forward these changes. It's why it was a big part of the October budget.</para>
<para>Families having access to more leave and enjoying greater flexibility will ensure that there is less of a gap in terms of paid income for households. Right now that is so important as interest rates and cost of living goes up. There are always extra expenses with children that you don't quite expect. This bill will be welcomed by so many, particularly those who are planning on having children or might find themselves expecting a little one soon—although I do have to note, because it's in my notes, that one of my staff members is a little bit disappointed that it didn't come in a bit sooner. Her second child is due in a few months.</para>
<para>Importantly, this change is part of Labor's commitment at the federal election to deliver on gender equality. It does help to demonstrate how we are wanting to make these changes. The reforms that are being introduced will improve flexibility from 1 July this year, and from 1 July next year we'll start expanding the scheme for an additional two weeks each year until it reaches 26 by 1 July 2026. I hope we don't stop there. We need to look at super on paid parental leave. It's one of the other gaps that we have in terms of people who take paid parental leave earning income. Perhaps when we see more men taking paid parental leave we'll start to see a boost in super.</para>
<para>We want to see the corporate sector, the community sector and employers step up, and see them more develop more generous paid parental leave schemes for males and parents; for dads. We want to encourage more families in those early years to not just share the workload of raising young people but also be able to perform those early critical bonds so that they too can be home with a 21-month-old toddler doing the dinner, bottle and bed routine. I'm hoping that my speech is not being part of face time to them. I think all of us who've had that joy of becoming parents know that those early days are fun. Those early years are fun. But the extra support to take the financial stress away makes life that little bit easier.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BATES</name>
    <name.id>300246</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm glad to support the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, which makes paid parental leave available to both parents in the relationship. It's a welcome step that fosters a more equal division of care between parents and supports LGBTQI+ and non-traditional family units as well.</para>
<para>We're facing one of the most significant cost-of-living and housing crises we've ever faced. Brisbane residents and their families are struggling to manage their care responsibilities and work commitments to make ends meet. Widening the scope of paid parental leave is a step in the right direction, but there's so much more that we can do. Despite these improvements, Australia's current Paid Parental Leave scheme is ranked as the second worst in the developed world. Australians only receive 18 weeks of paid leave, which doesn't come close to the international best practice of 52 weeks and doesn't reach the same level of pay or structured 'use it or lose it' provisions.</para>
<para>This bill is a welcome recognition of the need to reform the way we design parental leave. We must address maternal and child health; and encourage shared care and the contribution of paid parental leave policies to shift attitudes of traditional gender roles and narrow the persistent gender pay gap. We must keep pushing for the kind of support and care that our community deserves. At a minimum, the government should immediately fund 26 weeks of paid parental leave. Families can't afford to wait another three years.</para>
<para>In a country as wealthy as Australia, this is something that we can do. If the government can find $40 billion of fossil fuel subsidies, they can find the money to take care of working families. If the government can afford these subsidies, they can afford to give carers and their children the quality of life that they deserve. If we can afford the stage 3 tax cuts, which will cost $245 billion over the next decade, we can afford to make a world-class paid parental leave scheme. The work and care inquiry initiated by my colleague Senator Barbara Pocock in the Senate has heard a wealth of evidence about the need for a strong parental leave scheme, and the Greens will continue to push to make that a reality.</para>
<para>Like I said, families can't afford to wait another three years. We must accept the recommendations of stakeholders like the Australian Council of Trade Unions and establish a full 52 weeks of paid parental leave by 2030 as per international standards. Families across the world and particularly across Scandinavia already enjoy such high standards of paid parental leave, and Australian families deserve the same.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm proud to speak to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022 in this place today, and I'm proud to do so as a member of this government, which is ensuring this critical reform is provided to families right across Australia. Labor governments build the country. Our positive reforms are felt for decades. They are reforms which benefit the people of Australia and ensure a fair go for all. Gough Whitlam reformed higher education to ensure it was accessible and achievable for all Australians. Bob Hawke reformed Australia's health system, with Medicare, ensuring more people could access health care. And it is this government, led by Anthony Albanese, that will reform paid parental leave, which will ensure greater gender equality and fairness for all Australian families.</para>
<para>When we came to office in May last year, paid parental leave became one of our central focuses as a new government. The 2021-22 federal budget had, at its core, investment in paid parental leave for the benefit of the people of Australia and the Australian economy. It's not just a social measure; it's also an economic measure. This government understands that investment in paid parental leave, when it is done right, will advance gender equality, provide a boost for the economy and help everyday Aussie families with the cost-of-living pressures that are being felt across Australia right now. It was a message that was sent loud and clear by workers, employers, unions, economists and industry experts at September's Jobs and Skills Summit: gender equality and economic reform are issues that go hand in hand. It's not often, as we know, that you get all those disparate groups coming together with a common voice. This is a reform that opens our economy and provides full and fair participation for women in Australia, both as parents and within the workforce.</para>
<para>It was the Prime Minister who said that this reform agenda would be 'a parental leave system that empowers the full and equal participation of women, which will be good for business, good for families and good for our economy'. The message from this government cannot be clearer than that. The importance of this bill cannot be more obvious. This reform, at its core, is good for Australia.</para>
<para>This bill will see the implementation of the first tranche of the government's paid parental leave changes, which were announced by the government in October, in Labor's first budget in 10 years. The bill provides essential structural change, which will modernise paid parental leave and ensure that it meets the needs of modern Australia and modern families. This means the scheme will meet the needs of Australian families fairly and equally, which is something that it doesn't currently do. Current eligibility rules under the Paid Parental Leave scheme are unfair, at best, in a way that disproportionately and negatively affects families in which the mother is the higher income earner—and I don't think anybody can enunciate it better than my colleague the member for Bendigo in her terrific speech just now.</para>
<para>Backwards views on who is and isn't the breadwinner in a family are just not relevant in today's Australia, and so it is important that these views are not inadvertently entrenched in legislation and the support schemes that emanate from it. Under the current scheme, mothers who are the higher income earner are negatively impacted by statute. Currently, two families with a household income of $200,000 dollars are treated vastly differently based on who is the primary income earner. If the father in this situation is the primary income earner, then the scheme is accessible to that family and they meet the eligibility criteria. But if the mother is the higher income earner, then the family is automatically ineligible for support under the scheme. It's not good enough, and this government and this bill will change it.</para>
<para>Frankly, we're 23 years into the 21st century, and we've still got a situation where women face this sort of discrimination. I'm old enough to remember when women had to leave the workforce when they got married. I'm not quite old enough to remember when women had to get their husband's permission to open bank accounts. We thought those days were long behind us. The entrails of those days remain in legislation, and this government is determined to wipe them out and end discrimination once and for all.</para>
<para>This bill will deliver six key and core changes that will come into effect from 1 July 2023. First, it will combine the two existing payments under the scheme into a single 20-week scheme. This will make it less convoluted and more easily accessible for parents. Currently, there are two payments that are made under the scheme from government. Parental leave pay, which provides up to 18 weeks of payment, is primarily targeted to mothers. On the other hand, dad and partner pay provides up to two weeks of payment to fathers and partners. Under this bill, those two payment streams will combine in a single 20-week payment which will give parents more choice and flexibility in how they choose to use paid parental leave and how they choose to share care of their newborn or adopted child. This better reflects modern Australia and how Australian families choose to parent in modern Australia. It accepts that not all families are the same and that different families will make different choices. This gives vital flexibility to parents so that they have the opportunity to provide for their family in a way that suits their family. This very much puts the family first.</para>
<para>The second key change is that a portion of the scheme will be reserved for each parent to support them both to take time off work after birth or adoption. I can't put into words how important that is. The ability for both parents to take time to be just that—parents—and to spend time to bond with their newborn and to enjoy being a family is something that all parents deserve, and under this Paid Parental Leave scheme it is something that all parents will be able to participate in. As the member for Bendigo so brilliantly enunciated, those early years are so vital in setting future roles in the family. Actually, I've noticed this myself in my family. I'm perhaps embarrassed to admit that, while my wife and I used to share duties at home fairly equally, we have a very traditional set-up, I would say, when it comes to child rearing, and my wife by all means takes on the heavy domestic chores in the household. So that's a very traditional way. I'm sure I get a lot of grief for it still, as I should. But those marks are set early, and this seeks to change that. So it is a very welcome change. When I see the young fathers in this place and the way that they are so ready to take paid parental leave and to be much more involved in the nurturing of their kids in a way that I admit I never did with my young children, it's just fantastic to see how quickly young fathers are adapting.</para>
<para>Third, the notion of primary and secondary carers will be removed. This will make it easier for both parents to access support. The removal of this terminology is long overdue. I don't think anybody would realistically consider one parent to be more important than the other, so why should the paid parental leave scheme support that inference by listing primary and secondary carers? It's wrong, and it's gone with this bill under this government.</para>
<para>The fourth key change is that we are expanding access to the scheme by introducing a $350,000 family income test. Under this test, applicants can qualify even if they do not meet the $156,647 individual income test. That's about opening access to this scheme to more Australians, and it means stronger families and a stronger economy. It's a great initiative, and I'm pleased it's being included in the bill.</para>
<para>Fifth, the bill will increase flexibility for parents to choose how they take paid parental leave days and how they transition back to work. Every person in Australia is different. Every parent is different, with different circumstances and different ways that they will adjust to their newfound parenthood. It's critical that this flexibility is afforded to people so they can make transitions in a way that is right for their family and in the best interests of their family. Governments should never dictate how someone leads their personal life or their family life. Improved flexibility in the scheme will be a game changer for Australian families.</para>
<para>Finally, the sixth key change to the scheme in this bill is to allow eligible fathers and partners to access the payment irrespective of whether the mother or birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements. Families living in Australia should not be left behind, and families will not be left behind under the Albanese government. This key change is another way that the Australian government is ensuring more access to the scheme, which is both fair and to the benefit of Australian families and, by default, the broader Australian community via the economy.</para>
<para>In my electorate, many families are struggling with the cost of living and are uncertain about the future for their new and growing families. This bill sends a message loud and clear that the government stands with Australian families and is making it easier for them. From Deloraine in the north through to Bridgewater in the south and everywhere in between in my electorate, families are going to benefit from these changes to the Paid Parental Leave scheme, and so in turn will local economies.</para>
<para>I'll conclude in the same way I started: by reiterating that this bill is good for families and good for the economy. It's a bill that provides much-needed reform to Australia's Paid Parental Leave scheme. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister, Amanda Rishworth, for the work that she has put into this reform for the benefit of Australian families. This is a very significant reform. It's a reform that should be a unifying moment for this parliament. At its core, it's a bill that will ensure the ongoing security and prosperity of Australian families in a flexible way that works for them, and I am sure that, just as we talk about the reforms that Gough Whitlam made to education and that Bob Hawke made to health, this will go down as a defining moment and future Labor governments will turn to this and say, 'This, too, was a defining moment that we should be proud of.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURNS</name>
    <name.id>278522</name.id>
    <electorate>Macnamara</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to be speaking on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022. I'm so proud that once again it's a Labor government who is leading the way on this critical reform. We know that improving paid parental leave is vital for the health and wellbeing of families and has immense benefits for our economy. We also heard loud and clear during the Jobs and Skills Summit in September last year that paid parental leave reform would be instrumental in advancing gender equality. Businesses, unions, experts and economists all understand that one of the best ways to boost productivity and participation is to provide more choice and more support for families and more opportunity for women to re-enter the workforce. The introduction of this bill is just another example of the Albanese government listening and acting.</para>
<para>This bill is designed to address shortfalls under the current scheme. At present the scheme does not do enough to provide access to fathers and partners, it limits flexibility for families to choose how they take leave and transition back to work, and the eligibility rules are unfair to families where the mother is the higher income earner. Our bill fixes these issues. It gives more families access to the government payment, it gives parents more flexibility in how they take leave and it encourages parents to share care to improve gender equality.</para>
<para>From 1 July 2023, the bill delivers six key reforms. The two existing payments will be combined into a single 20-week scheme. A portion of the scheme will be reserved for each parent, to support them both taking time off work after a birth or adoption. It will be easier for both parents to access the payment, as the notion of primary and secondary carers will be removed. Access will expand through the introduction of a $350,000 family income test, under which families can be assessed if they exceed the individual income test. Flexibility for parents to choose how they take leave days will increase, and eligible fathers and partners will be allowed to access the payment irrespective of whether the birth parent meets the income test or residency requirements.</para>
<para>Australia's first paid parental leave came into force on 1 January 2011. This was a Labor government initiative. Now, a decade later, the Albanese Labor government is ensuring that our Paid Parental Leave scheme meets contemporary expectations and is fit for purpose for the next decade and beyond.</para>
<para>The changes in this bill send a clear message that treating parenting as an equal partnership supports gender equality. Our wonderful Minister for Social Services said boosting women's workforce participation and encouraging more dads to take paid parental leave was a priority for the government. The minister has made the point that treating parenting as an equal partnership helps to improve gender equality, and she is right when she says of our changes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">This will benefit mums, it will benefit dads, it's good for children, and it will be a huge boost to the economy.</para></quote>
<para>Our government values men as carers too. We want to see that reinforced in workplaces and in our communities.</para>
<para>On a personal note, I know how important paid parental leave is. When my beautiful daughter, Tia, was born, having time together as a new family was so important and so special. It meant so much to have that time at home. In fact, it was probably the best four weeks of my life. I know that for many fathers or non-birthing parents two weeks is not enough time to support the mother, or birthing parent, to settle into the new routine and care for their baby—not enough time in these formative months.</para>
<para>Australians need a paid parental leave scheme that reflects the needs of modern families. The current scheme does not do enough to provide access for parents together. For example, currently dads take government paid leave at roughly half the rate that mums do. The scheme as it stands today is built on gendered assumptions of primary and secondary carers, which limit parents' ability to share care.</para>
<para>It's time to ensure that our legislation better reflects what we know about the benefits for children that can flow from a more flexible scheme, and there are benefits for parents as well. Why would we perpetuate an outdated understanding of caring roles, where too much of the burden falls on one parent and, as a consequence, that parent is more likely to suffer poor mental and physical health? Having both parents engaged in care also means that they are more likely to be happy at home, where they can be engaged in the lives of their children. They will be more productive when they return to work. Their children will grow up and fare better at home and at school. If both parents have the opportunity to be part of caring for their children it also means greater empowerment for the parent who might otherwise have to take on a significant portion of the responsibilities. This means, among other things, that they may have the option of returning to work sooner, which would support productivity in the economy. This is why our changes to paid parental leave are not just about individuals; they deliver benefits to the entire family and to the community more broadly.</para>
<para>As I mentioned before, placing a burden of care on one parent alone in the weeks and months after a child is born is not acceptable. It's plain unfair. Our paid parental leave scheme should not entrench an outdated model of care. We know that this approach leads to adverse mental health outcomes for the parent who has to undertake this task, and we know that, more often than not, it is the mother. Our paid parental leave scheme should operate to ensure there is no structural reason for this outcome to take place. The importance of this is outlined by a mother who described her experience of a paid parental leave scheme that is past its use-by date. The example I've taken is from an organisation called TheParentHood. The mother described her experience as follows:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Rather, it was a blur of tears, anxiety and a needling sense of dread that felt louder and more urgent as the days passed by. This challenge was in no small way due to the inadequate parental leave afforded to my husband, a predicament that is unfortunately commonplace in Australia.</para></quote>
<para>She outlined the anxiety that surrounded her as she grappled with the responsibilities of being a new mother after being discharged from hospital, saying she:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… spent the remainder of a fortnight juggling nappies, breast pumps, and an unspoken sense of panic at the prospect of me carrying on solo once my husband returned to work.</para></quote>
<para>Most significantly, she spoke frankly and bravely about the depth of mental health struggle that ensued over subsequent weeks and months:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over the next few months my mental health suffered, and despite the enormous support of friends and family, it became clear to those around me that my struggle with parenthood was very much affected by what was later identified as postnatal anxiety and depression.</para></quote>
<para>The Paid Parental Leave scheme changes made by this legislation will not eliminate postnatal anxiety and depression, but, by increasing the flexibility of the scheme and making it possible for parents to more reasonably share caring responsibilities and support each other, we will remove a structural problem that exists under the current scheme. All the evidence tells us that this will help create an environment that is likely to reduce the circumstances that create a mental health burden on one parent, which is usually the mother. This is undeniably a very positive outcome.</para>
<para>Throughout my speech, I've spoken about how these changes will apply to parents and families. In my own case, as I outlined, I share the responsibilities of parenting with my wonderful wife. But I understand that not every family looks like mine, and this scheme does not apply just to mums and dads. The legislation is inclusive of different models of family, all of which must be nurtured, supported and celebrated in our community. I know many families of different kinds in my electorate and beyond—rainbow families, single-parent families—and our Paid Parental Leave scheme ensures that these families are also able to access support when they need it to help give the next generation the best possible start in life.</para>
<para>Labor is the party that has delivered paid parental leave to Australian families. We need to ensure our national Paid Parental Leave scheme keeps pace with the expectations of Australian families. Increased flexibility in the application of paid parental leave will benefit parents and their children. All Australians should welcome this. I hope it will be reflected in the way that parents share the responsibility of raising their children, from birth right through their early years and beyond. Without these changes, we risk leaving in place a paid parental leave scheme trapped in the past. I call on all members to get behind this legislation. This benefit will be felt across our communities and across our economy. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Greater flexibility has become a persistent theme over the last few years. Many have benefited from more time at home, online meetings, more flexible leave arrangements and working from home. For a lot of Australians, greater flexibility has made juggling everyday responsibilities easier, and it's given many people the time for the things that really matter to them, the important things—more time with family, more time with friends, more time to focus on physical and mental wellbeing, more time to explore new passions. For new parents, that sounds like a bit of a fantasy list, given the pressures that are placed on new parents—and parents generally speaking, frankly, until the kids are out the door after university or whenever it might be. But, for new parents, the biggest barriers to flexibility come at one of the most important times in their lives.</para>
<para>We know that Australia has a generous paid parental leave scheme. Globally, it's one of the better ones. But there are still significant improvements needed when it comes to flexibility and equity. That's what this bill, the Paid Parental Amendment (Improvements for Families and Gender Equality) Bill 2022, seeks to do—to make paid parental leave more flexible and more equitable for Australian families. It's going to combine the current 18 weeks leave for the primary carer and two weeks leave for the other parent into a single 20-week scheme, allowing parents to make decisions about how they utilise paid parental leave—flexibility. It's going to remove the notion of primary and secondary claimants and the requirement that the primary claimant must be the birth parent. This change will reflect the fact that the families of modern Australia come in all shapes and sizes, with different responsibilities and commitments. It gives parents the choice in how they structure their leave days and their transition back to work. It gives parents the option to split leave as they see fit, rather than one parent being entitled to 18 weeks, while the other is limited to two. While many parents may still decide that one takes most of the time, it allows them, the parents, to make that decision. That's important, because we know that the current arrangements particularly restrict women in returning to work.</para>
<para>We know that women are more often the primary carer, on average, as far as the data goes. Unless they take their first 12 weeks of leave at once, they forfeit the remaining six weeks which can be used flexibly. So they are effectively penalised if they choose to return to work in their first 12 weeks of leave, even if it is just for a day or two a week. A lot of mums—I know this is a bit anecdotal—who have had their second or third child are like: 'I want to go back to work now, early.' Some mums choose to stay the whole year with their newborn. It especially happens with the firstborn, but, I think, once they get to the second or third, they're like: 'See you later. I'm going back to work.' Fair enough. We want to give women that flexibility to make their own arrangements under the scheme. So this is really important—to give them a real choice. The decision is not going to be made for them. They get to make the decision. This bill will allow women greater freedom over when they return to work, by allowing the leave to be used flexibly from day one. It's a change that supports advancing women's economic equality. This is a key goal of the Albanese Labor government. It provides greater access to fathers and partners, who often are limited to only two weeks of leave despite wanting to share the load. It will include all sorts of parents: LGBTQIA+ parents and parents who have adopted or who have been forced to split leave in ways that might not suit their family's needs or wishes. These changes give parents choice about when they return to work. Payment days may be taken in multiple blocks as small as a day at a time with periods of work in between, within two years of the birth or adoption of a child. This is real flexibility. It gives people choice, and that's why these are such important elements of this bill. They give parents that choice.</para>
<para>The bill reflects the Albanese government's commitment to improve the lives of working families, to give them that choice. It improves their quality of life, supports better outcomes for children and advances women's economic equality, as I've noted. These reforms will reserve a portion of the scheme for each parent, to support them both to take time off work after the birth or adoption of a child. The elements of this bill follow advice and consultation with many experts and stakeholders, who were clear about the need for reserved portions to promote shared care and gender equality. They have come from the data and the evidence base that have informed the drafting of this bill and this policy.</para>
<para>Engagement with stakeholders has been a key feature of this bill. Reform of paid parental leave was one of the most frequent proposals raised at the successful Jobs and Skills Summit held in September last year. When we brought stakeholders and leaders from across Australia together to develop solutions on the big challenges facing our nation—guess what!—we were serious. And this is what came up. We were serious in our commitment to listen to Australians and to deliver what we think are commonsense changes that will make their lives better. That's part of being a good government. The changes in this bill fit that motivation and that course of action. They were widely welcomed in the October 2022-23 budget.</para>
<para>These changes are the most significant step to improving the Paid Parental Leave scheme since its establishment by the Labor government in 2011. It wasn't perfect then. We're suggesting some improvements. That's the sign of a good government, one that is always looking to improve, always evolving, always listening and making sure that it is meeting the needs of Australians, in this case parents, and giving them that much needed flexibility.</para>
<para>This reform will benefit 181,000 families. That means around 4,300 people who are currently ineligible will get access to paid parental leave, because we're lifting the family income limit to $350,000. That's great. And we will continue with reforms that improve the lives of Australians, including legislation later this year that will expand paid parental leave to 26 weeks by 2026. There's a nice symmetry there—26 by 26. I don't know who thought of that—some clever person—but it will be 26 weeks by 2026. It is a further improvement that will go straight to giving flexibility and support for parents in the Paid Parental Leave scheme.</para>
<para>Our changes are good for parents, they're good for kids, they're good for employers and they're good for our economy. They are changes that make a good scheme more suitable for a more modern Australia. We've evolved since 2011, and these changes are important in that context. Families will be able to make their own choices to suit their own family's needs and enjoy what is such an important time in their lives with their new baby. They can decide how long they spend. If it's a second or third, mum might want to go back to earlier than the year that she spent with the first born, but that's their choice, and that's the beauty of these changes. It really is making sure that we give families the chance to decide for themselves what is best for their family's circumstances. That is something that this Albanese Labor government has committed to delivering for Australian families.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>108</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been communicating today with the Mayor of Junee Shire Council, Neil Smith, and the general manager, James Davis, about their ongoing concerns about the closure of that wonderful railway and now jail town's only bank. The Commonwealth Bank is set to close its doors. This is reprehensible, when you think that a town like Junee, which lies halfway between Sydney and Melbourne—a thriving community with a vibrant business community—is set to lose its only bank. Junee is 42 kilometres from Wagga Wagga. Junee has a population of nearly 6½ thousand. It needs banking services.</para>
<para>What's going to happen now is that the businesspeople of Junee are going to have to get in their cars and drive along the Olympic Highway to Wagga to deposit their cash each night. The member for Gippsland in a contribution in this place earlier this week described the modern day bank robber as being some of the CEOs, rather than the balaclava-wearing thief. That's a bit rough—a bit harsh—but it's probably true. The member for Parkes, who sits behind me, talked about the disconnect between the CEOs who talk a big game about Australia Day and working because of the supposed offence concerning this national day, yet they are so willing and so happy to close their bank branches in rural, regional and remote Australia.</para>
<para>Just in the Riverina in 2018, the NAB closed branches in Lockhart, Grenfell and Ardlethan. In December 2022, the Forbes branch closed. On 9 February, the NAB will close its Holbrook branch. The ANZ, in May 2018, closed its Temora and Forbes branches. In 2023, the Parkes branch will go. The Commonwealth closed its Lockhart branch and is set to close Junee. The Westpac branch in Parkes will close in 2023. Yet these communities I mentioned have given those banks so much, over so many years! They deserve better.</para>
<para>Junee is not going to cop this. I have spoken to Mr Davis, and I fully endorse his remarks. He said this will be the 700th bank branch to close in the past three years. He has done the research. If they maintain the same pace of closures, there are not going to be any branches left in three years time. Of course he is referring to the regions. Junee is mounting a petition. They are getting national media attention. What we don't want to see is people being held up on the Olympic Highway because they might need to make deposits in Wagga Wagga. I have met with Junee council and I'm pleased that Senator Perin Davey is pushing ahead with the banking inquiry, in terms of the work that she has been doing—and others as well—to review and strengthen the Australian Banking Association's branch closure protocols, to implement branch closure impact assessments and to promote and support Bank@Post services and to maintain access to cash. Maintaining access to cash is one of the things people might not consider or think about, but those small businesses in those regional towns need cash because a lot of people in those towns still operate with cash, such as the Junee Liquorice & Chocolate Factory. They're pretty upset, let me tell you! I know Neil Druce. I know him very, very well and I know his daughter Rhiannon. They have a wonderful business, and many people come into that small business and operate on cash. He's contemplating what he's going to do as far as where he deposits his money.</para>
<para>These people have been left high and dry by banks—not just the CBA, but other banks—that are abandoning Junee and deserting and abandoning regional Australia. It's not good enough. It's simply not good enough for these banks to get all woke when they want to think and talk about Australia Day in capital cities and leave our regional communities without banking services. Those regional communities, through farms and through resources, have invested heavily in those banks and in those bank employees for year upon year upon year, for decades, for more than a hundred years. It's simply not good enough, and we in regional Australia aren't going to cop it. So I say to the bank CEOs: lift your game, pull your socks up and reopen those branches.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Venerable Master Hsing Yun</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today my thoughts and condolences with the Fo Guang Shan community as we mourn the loss of the Venerable Master Hsing Yun. Master Hsing Yun peacefully passed away at the age of 97 on Sunday, surrounded by solemn chanting. His legacy and teachings will continue to be honoured by the followers of the Buddha's Light International Association and its parent organisation, Fo Guang Shan. Born to poor working-class parents in Yangzhou, China, the venerable master was throughout his life a teacher, a writer, a monastic and an inspiration to millions of devotees across the world. Master Hsing Yun will be remembered for his lifelong dedication to fostering talent through education and his contributions to society through charity.</para>
<para>In 1967 he founded Fo Guang Shan, an international Buddhist organisation famous for its benevolence and emphasis on education, compassion and peace. Through Fo Guang Shan and the associated Buddha's Light International Association, devotees and volunteers dedicate their time and efforts to improving the lives of others. Examples of their work include operating free medical clinics with mobile units in remote areas, winter relief programs to supply warm clothing and food, children's and seniors' homes, as well as wildlife conservation. Hundreds of devotees in Sydney volunteer for Clean Up Australia Day, and in 2015 their efforts were recognised by the New South Wales government with the Volunteer of the Year Award.</para>
<para>By 2017, Fo Guang Shan had reached over one million followers, with temples and organisations established in 173 countries, from the Unites States to Brazil, South Africa and Australia. In New South Wales alone, the Nan Tien Temple spans several hundred branches, including at Kogarah, Chatswood and Wollongong. In addition to these, in my electorate of Parramatta, we're home to a large branch of the Nan Tien Temple. It's described as the spiritual home of Buddhist devotees in Western Sydney, hosting several activities year round, from arts and craft classes to a Chinese language school and even a cultural exchange where interfaith dialogues are held. I am fortunate to have in my electorate a strong, thriving community of BLIA devotees. Every day, they enrich Parramatta through their contributions, whether it be with their culture, particularly in their Lunar New Year and harvest festival celebrations, or in the charity work they consistently do for the local community.</para>
<para>Not only is the community at Parramatta's Nan Tien Temple a fantastic representation of BLIA and Fo Guang Shan but it serves as a terrific example of Master Hsing Yun's vision and teachings. A teacher, a writer, a monastic and an inspiration to many. May the Venerable Master Hsing Yun rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banking and Financial Services</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COULTON</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
    <electorate>Parkes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to speak about the disconnect between corporate Australia and the people that they serve. I thank my good friend the member for Riverina for foreshadowing that in his contribution. I reinforce what he said about bank closures.</para>
<para>I'd like to first take issue with the ANZ bank. The ANZ bank last year withdrew finance or refused to finance the Port of Newcastle because it is a port that exports coal. Despite the fact that the Port of Newcastle authority has no coal assets, ANZ, in their virtue, decided not to finance them. What they failed to realise is that the majority of the grain that's grown in my electorate in northern New South Wales, that is exported to countries all over the world and pays our bills, go through the Port of Newcastle. So while the banks out there trying to sign up farmers as customers, they're undermining their supply chains by not financing the Port of Newcastle.</para>
<para>The CEO of the National Australia Bank, in virtue, decided to work on Australia Day in support of Aboriginal people in Australia. They weren't so thoughtful when they shut the Wee Waa branch. The people in that town who are most disadvantaged are the elderly Aboriginal people who are not au fait with online banking.</para>
<para>The Telstra CEO decided to work on Australia Day to show her virtue and support for Aboriginal people, but where was Telstra during the pandemic when the kids at Wilcannia had to work remotely and didn't have an internet connection to enable them to do that? It put them at an extreme disadvantage to people in other towns. Where were they then? I don't have an issue with the people on the ground. On Australia Day, as I was driving across my electorate, I saw a Telstra technician working on an exchange. I'm sure he was doing that to do his job and make sure people had communication and not signalling his virtue while he was doing it.</para>
<para>Westpac closed down one of its oldest and most respected branches in Moree, the home of the most productive agricultural shire in Australia. It's also a town that has a very high Aboriginal population. They closed down this branch where three of its 10 first customers in 1878 are continuous. Families have been there for 150 or 160 years, and now their biggest client would pay the cost for the whole branch. They closed it down, some bean counter, off somewhere else, Moree, a community of 15,000, on the Inland Rail, getting a special activation precinct, on the verge of a boom, getting a signal that corporate Australia doesn't see any future for.</para>
<para>This virtue signalling in support of Aboriginal people, I want to give a shout-out to my electorate staff in my three officers. They support and work for Aboriginal people every day of the week. I've heard some comments in this place that I find are quite offensive to the people I represent. I represent, after the Northern Territory, the highest percentage of Aboriginal people in any electorate in this country. I've been working with them for 15 years. These people are working out there as health professionals, in education, and as CEOs of local government.</para>
<para>A large number of my shire councillors are Aboriginal. They're building roads; they're running cultural centres. We've got young Aboriginal men instructing boys at the Quantum Foundation. I could go on and on. Good, solid citizens and part of the community. Some of the comments here, where people are speaking in slow voices and espousing their virtue and their care for these people with clearly no understanding of the integrity and the ability and the desire for these people to drive their own communities. My people have had enough of this. They're getting on with the job. They don't need the sympathy and the virtue of corporate Australia; they just want the support to do what they're doing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Homelessness</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sadly, homelessness is a growing problem in Australia. In the last Census, 24,000 Victorians were listed as being without a home on any given night and 116,000 Australians were listed as being without a home on any given night. They're the ones that we know of. They're the ones who completed the Census or the ones that the Census team were able to catch up with. We know that the figure is much higher and likely to climb. We know that many people may not identify as homeless even though they don't have a permanent home, staying for extended periods with family or moving from friend to friend until they run out of options.</para>
<para>New data released at the end of last year identified that in regional Victoria over 5,200 people are homeless. In my own town of Bendigo the data included about 400 people, many of whom are sleeping rough. Every day Victorian homelessness services are turning away 133 people, and that's just one service. Locally I hear from many organisations that they simply can't keep up, and they don't know where people are going if they can't help them.</para>
<para>Recently I had the opportunity to catch up with the team at MADCOW, who are based in town in Bendigo. They are trying to fill the gap that has been created. They provide homelessness support services to people who are sleeping rough and people who other services quite often don't know how to help. In January alone they said that they had 15 new clients just walk in—some referrals and some who'd heard that they provide help. What they offer is a cup of tea and a chance to sit down. Their wraparound service tries to link them into other support services. They learn a little bit about their story but don't make them feel questioned. They don't make them feel judged. They give them the opportunity to find a friend. I really want to acknowledge the many volunteers and the amazing leadership of Matt and Fiona, who have really helped to pull this service together and see it grow. They told me that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic demand soared and it continued to grow.</para>
<para>Tent cities are popping up all over the country; you just have to look. Whether it's in Huntly, the Whipstick forests or even next to the railway lines, you can't get past the fact that we have growing tent cities. They're popping up everywhere. The one next to the railway yard even has its own mayor. All the people turn to him and seek leadership and guidance. He's been there the longest. He's the one that the police go to. He's the one that the services go to if somebody is missing or they're not quite sure.</para>
<para>A client suggested the name MADCOW because they kind of take on everybody. They are partly funded and supported by the Baptist church, but they are so much more. They ensure that people not only get a good meal and a warm cuppa but are able to take a shower if they like, wash their clothes and connect to a range of services and agencies across Bendigo, who are quite frankly under siege.</para>
<para>Their current building is not fit for purpose, but they haven't just sat back and waited. They've actually gone out there and secured the funding not only from donations from the church community but also through securing a grant from the Sidney Myer foundation. They've pulled together funding to buy their building. Their next plan is to gut the place and build a fit-for-purpose space that can be a homelessness hub for the rough sleepers in Bendigo. They know that there's an increase in demand, and they believe that this service could really help people get back on track. I agree.</para>
<para>It's not just for the people who are seeking support that this space would help. It would also help their many volunteers to have a fit-for-purpose place. A lot of the people who offer clinical services go to this building already because that's where the homeless people are. It's where they may start their drug and alcohol rehab. It's where they may see a GP. It's where they may access many clinical services. It is a good starting point. It is a project that governments should look to support. What I really respect about the team at MADCOW is that they are just getting on with it, but would welcome a partner in helping them do it.</para>
<para>Thank you to the volunteers of not just MADCOW but every organisation in Greater Bendigo and across the Bendigo electorate who tonight are ensuring that rough sleepers have a good meal and have somewhere to go tomorrow not just for a meal but to wash their clothes and to have a friendly chat.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to place on record my eternal thanks to a group of eminently trained engineers who travelled to parliament on 24 and 25 November last year at their own cost, totally pro bono, to put on the most marvellous presentation of data about our energy system and the AEMO plan for the future of the grid, an essential document guiding a massive investment by state and federal governments into the so-called transition to a cleaner, decarbonised energy system. They also had analysed the <inline font-style="italic">GenCost </inline>report, which has also been used extensively in modelling our so-called transition.</para>
<para>I will just give a brief summary. Basically, these engineers were incredibly well-qualified, internationally trained, Canadian, English and Australian engineers. There was input from American engineers. In fact, we received summaries by one of those engineers, Dave Collins, who'd been to MIT. We saw a summary of the information presented by Professor Jacopo Buongiorno and all the other presenters at a MIT short course—Adi Paterson, Professor Steven Wilson, Robert Barr, Robert Parker, Dave Collins, Tony Irwin, Robert Pritchard, Helen Cook, James Flay, James Taylor and his group of 10 independent engineers and scientists. From the UK, Dr Tim Stone gave us a wonderful presentation and David Carland, a very experienced energy economic analyser, reissued his report.</para>
<para>The take-home message is that the huge transition is not really a transition. I think it's a faulty word because it implies almost an equivalence—that we're just changing how the electricity grid works. The analysis by all these eminent engineers—this was delivered not by me but by them—is that there is inadequate generation and inadequate storage. That is the bottom line. But there are also very big physical problems with a massive expansion of transmission and distribution and a re-working of the whole grid. The amount of pumped hydro would have to be 20 times what is proposed. If you're having batteries being dispatchable backup for a week, which will be required, you might be spending up to $7 trillion cycling energy into and out of batteries, which consumes 20 per cent of the energy you've generated. Half the battery backup is based in people's homes as part of a distributed energy system, and it will be controlled when it's coordinated by artificial intelligence, by smart meters that connect into your batteries of your EV or your house.</para>
<para>The economic cost of this is quite staggering. They mentioned the figures in AEMO's integrated system plan, which is their future plan for the grid. But, really, what it will cost in implicit costs is more than double. By the end of the 2050 period, when most of these renewable assets will be rebuilt because they have a short life span, it'll be at minimum $1.26 trillion—far greater than what AEMO estimates. The transmission losses are assumed to be zero, but interconnectors can consume between eight per cent and 15 per cent of the energy. Each 100 kilometres of transmission, you might lose up to one per cent of your energy. There are plans to go up to 23,000 extra kilometres of transmission—not just the massive interconnectors; the smaller distribution medium- and low-voltage areas will also have to be worked up because it'll have to cope with a two-way system.</para>
<para>It is absolutely mind-boggling that these reports have been taken as absolute bible and haven't been interrogated by competent people. For those on the other side, these documents have formed the basis of the RepuTex modelling you have used for your Rewiring the Nation and re-powering the nation plans. It needs rapid re-assessment on a holistic and urgent basis. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Capital Punishment</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 31 July 1922, Queensland became the first state in Australia to abolish the death penalty—banana benders leading the way, as I'm sure you, Speaker, would always support. A little over 100 years ago, Australia took its first step towards abolishing the death penalty. Queensland led the other states and the Commonwealth parliament followed suit. Tasmania was actually next, with New South Wales being the last jurisdiction to abandon capital punishment in 1985. In fact, in 2010, the Australian parliament under Labor passed legislation to ban any reintroduction of the death penalty in Australia. This ensures that our nation never returns to this barbaric practice.</para>
<para>As a member of the 47th Parliament, I will continue to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty right across the globe. I'm proud to co-chair with Western Australia's Senator Dean Smith the Parliamentary Friends for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. We have members from all sides of politics who support the global aim of removing capital punishment. The parliamentary group supports groups and individuals around the world who are on the front line assisting people on death row. We also push for greater transparency, particularly in our corner of the globe.</para>
<para>To put our region in context, our closest neighbour, New Zealand, abolished the death penalty after World War II—long after Queensland, I would point out. They might beat us in the Bledisloe Cup but not when it comes to abolishing the death penalty. Our closest neighbour, Papua New Guinea, abolished the death penalty in January 2022. Well done to those parliamentarians! Capital punishment was first scrapped in PNG in 1974, but then was reintroduced in 1991. Thankfully no executions were carried out during the 30 years when the punishment was technically on the books. Capital punishment was abolished in East Timor in 1999, immediately following its independence.</para>
<para>I mentioned that New Zealand abolished the death penalty in 1989. Capital punishment has been abolished in Fiji. It abolished capital punishment for ordinary crimes in 1979 and for all crimes in 2015. Just last July, the Malaysian government announced their agreement to abolish the mandatory death penalty. All the best to the Malaysian parliament, particularly those parliamentarians who are fighting for the end of this barbaric practice. The Malaysian government actually tabled bills to abolish the mandatory death penalty; however, the parliament was dissolved on 10 October before the bills were passed. It's hoped that these bills will pass very soon. To those fighting for that: more strength to your arm! As you can see, many of our neighbours have followed Queensland's and Australia's lead in abolishing the death penalty.</para>
<para>When major developed countries just like Malaysia remove it from their legal systems, this puts pressure on their neighbours—other countries in our region—to do the same. Some of our good friends in modern countries like Singapore are still executing people. Executions in Singapore are carried out by the long drop—that is, hanging—and they usually take place at dawn. Many of those recently executed and those currently on death row come from minority backgrounds with little language and with next to no access to proper legal assistance. Shockingly, in Singapore, you can be legally interrogated without any legal representation, a tactic which is anathema to common law countries like Australia. Imagine that someone has been found using an illicit substance—because that's what most of the people on death row have been charged with—and they're dragged into a Singapore interrogation room, possibly suffering withdrawal symptoms at the time. They have no lawyer. They have language issues. If you're fortunate enough to be given an interpreter, there is the real possibility of the interpreter not actually being able to speak your native tongue.</para>
<para>There is no-one there to support you or fight for your rights, as a good lawyer would. So, of course, there is every possibility of that person making statements that aren't factual which lead to a swift conviction and the death penalty. To further enforce the unfairness of the system in Singapore, those found guilty have their appeal rights limited, and access to legal assistance is almost non-existent. Many are forced to self-represent even when they've got language problems. To compound the lack of basic human rights, death row inmates are essentially cut off from the outside world in Singapore. They're held in single cells, not even being able to see other prisoners or have contact with their loved ones. Their one hour of exercise a week is also alone. They're not even allowed a simple phone call with family members, although that was relaxed during COVID. I could go on to talk about Scott Rush and the Bali Nine in Indonesia, but I'll leave that for another day, Speaker.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 19 : 59</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>112</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 8 February 2023</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Payne)</span> took the chair at 09:30.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>114</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fowler Electorate: Lunar New Year</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LE</name>
    <name.id>295676</name.id>
    <electorate>Fowler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While the majority of us welcome 1 January as the Western calendar new year, many people in my community have their unique cultural new year celebrations between January and April. We have just come out of the lunar new year celebration, which is celebrated by people of Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean heritage. For Australians of Chinese background, it's the year of the rabbit, and, for Australians of Vietnamese background, it's the year of the cat. I note in the past the Australian community has constantly referred to the lunar new year as the 'Chinese new year'. I would like us to correct that. It's not just the Chinese community who mark this important cultural date, so do other groups, as I have mentioned.</para>
<para>The lunar new year is a fantastic and colourful cultural celebration, and I believe no-one does it better than my community in Fowler, particularly Fairfield City Council, which is renowned for creating and putting on amazing cultural festivals celebrating diversity. Last weekend, the council put on a magnificent new year celebration in Freedom Plaza in the heart of Cabramatta, attracting tens of thousands of visitors, helping to boost the local economy. Our city was lit up with fireworks, firecrackers, dragon and lion dancing, and has been so since the start of the year.</para>
<para>The lunar new year is a significant celebration in our community, as it marks the beginning, a new start and a hope for a prosperous new year for many who celebrate this cultural date. It's accompanied with customary activities, such as the giving of the red envelope known as li xi. It's a requirement for every household to make sure they clean up their homes and pay respect to their elders in the community.</para>
<para>Every year, on 1 April, thousands of Syrians in my electorate of Fowler gather at the Fairfield showground to celebrate the beginning of their new year. This event has been organised by the Syrian National Council for many years as well as other Syrian groups. This year commemorates the 6,773rd new year for Fowler's Syrians. A celebration of this old civilisation would be incomplete without dancers dressed in traditional attire, musical performances by singers and drummers, and historical presentations about this ancient culture.</para>
<para>Moreover, this year, 14 April coincides with the new year celebrations of Cambodian, and Laotian and Thai populations in Fowler. The Cambodian new year is a something celebration of the solar new year beginning on the first day of the year. These communities will leave their homes and congregate on the streets and partake in the celebration at the Bonnyrigg Cambodian and Lao temples.</para>
<para>I can proudly say one of the privileges of being a representative of this multicultural community in Fowler is being given the opportunity to participate and share in community's diverse cultural celebrations. Fowler is like a museum, where each corner tells a story of a different community. Every cuisine takes you back to a place where the dish was first prepared, and the memories you make with each cultural celebration will remain with you forever. This is why I feel so fortunate to be able to speak on behalf of a community as rich as Fowler.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 2 February, it was great to go to Taste of Shunde restaurant in Hurstville to celebrate the lunar new year with CanRevive. CanRevive is an extraordinary organisation which started back in 1995. What CanRevive does is provide support for people in the Chinese-Australian community who are suffering from cancer, supporting them and their families through what, of course, is an incredibly difficult time. It was a visionary project when it started some 28 years ago. More than 8,000 people have been helped by CanRevive over the years. There are now activities in the city at Haymarket, in Hustville, and last year I was fortunate to open a new service at Westmead near the hospital. It is a wonderful organisation. I want to thank: Eric Yeung, the president; Associate Prof. Stephen Liberal; Jenny Wallis, the vice president; and also Stephen Liu, the chairman of the CanRevive Cancer Foundation. A very large amount of money has been raised from the community to support CanRevive over the years. It is a reflection of the quality of the organisation.</para>
<para>On 1 February, we opened the new Kids at Play playground at St George Hospital. This is a project that was initiated by Hurstville Rotary, a fantastic organisation. I was able some years ago to secure $400,000 from the federal government to support that project. Hurstville Rotary deserves immense credit because they themselves contributed more than $250,000 to this terrific project which now incorporates a kids' playground. There are picnic eating areas. It is a beautiful outdoor spot and a great location for patients and their families to spend time in during a hospital stay. So thank you to Jan Gartrell and everyone at Hurstville Rotary who has been behind this great project.</para>
<para>On 29 January, I attend the Canterbury-Bankstown Tennis Association courts at Panania for the opening of the new courts. It was great to see president Roger Pitt there, Paul Burgess, Adele English, Linda Wright and many other people. Some years ago, the federal government provided $360,000 for an important upgrade of these courts and that upgrade has been completed. Canterbury-Bankstown Tennis Association does fantastic work and it was terrific to be there for the opening.</para>
<para>On 17 January, I attended the Jing Jing swim school presentation at Peakhurst West pool. Roy Cho runs the Jing Jing school and has taught hundreds of kids how to swim over the years, and many of those kids have reached a high level of competitive swimming. It was great to present awards to those kids and, in particular, to be there at Peakhurst West Swimming Pool, which was built and paid for by the community back in the 1960s and must always be preserved and protected.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lingiari Electorate: Community Development Program</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SCRYMGOUR</name>
    <name.id>F2S</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the heart of the issues facing Lingiari—from Alice Springs to Bathurst Island, from Alpurrurulam to Kintore—is a neglect of the bush and of our remote communities. At the heart of this neglect is the failed Community Development Program. For too long there has been a severe shortage of meaningful work in our remote communities. Generationally, this creates a cycle. If you see your parents, aunties, uncles not working, why would you have any desire to work? If you don't have a job that respects your culture, your skills or your time, why would you turn up for your shift? And if you are not working, how do you have any chance of building intergenerational wealth? There is a reason our remote communities are struggling at the moment and it is clear that a lack of a remote employment program is at the heart of this.</para>
<para>It brought me immense pride to stand out in remote communities during the election and commit to a new employment program for our communities, one that would place community empowerment and Aboriginal enterprise at its heart. We are starting from very rocky foundations. The CDP, as it stands, is not good enough. I want to thank organisations right across my electorate like the Central Land Council, who are doing a lot of good work developing employment policies that are place based and culturally sensitive.</para>
<para>The new-look CDP needs to be highly localised, responding to the needs of individual communities. It needs to be community led and community governed. Central Land Council, like all the land councils, are trying to do that and are trying to work with government to make sure that we can respect and acknowledge the deep well of knowledge and skills that Aboriginal people hold. It is about real jobs. CDP is not an end in and of itself but it is about community and economic development. It is about Aboriginal enterprise and Aboriginal wealth building.</para>
<para>The Northern Territory Indigenous Business Network is also doing some fantastic work with communities developing Aboriginal enterprise and utilising business as a way of lifting people out of poverty. The Northern Land Council have their business arms. The Tiwi Islands has Tiwi Partners, a construction group I was fortunate enough to establish. All of these examples of Aboriginal enterprises are a testimony to the knowledge and skill of our mob back home. These skills need to be nurtured and enhanced, and that is what our new CDP reforms must focus on.</para>
<para>I end with a message for the people of Lingiari: our community has been through a rough ride the last few weeks, and indeed the last few years, but reform is on the way, change is coming, and the new look CDP will be testimony to this.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bean Electorate: Cricket</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DAVID SMITH</name>
    <name.id>276714</name.id>
    <electorate>Bean</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are some members of parliament who don't mind cricket and there are others, like me, who love it. I'm honoured to be the patron of the Tuggeranong Valley Cricket Club, the club that's had a Bevan, a Behrendorff, an Osborne and many a Floros in its ranks. It's been a role that's allowed me to get close to the game and the people that make up the club. The Tuggeranong and Weston Creek clubs in Bean have a storied history and a strong future. They are part of the broader ACT cricket community, a community that has just celebrated 100 years, is well led, is growing, has great diversity and has an ever-increasing talent pool.</para>
<para>Last December, I was privileged to host our talented Cricket ACT's under-19, under-17 and under-16 male and female teams, as well as their parents, up here at Parliament House. The teams were about to head off for representative duty, and along with Cricket ACT chair, Greg Boorer, I presented the players with their blue ACT caps.</para>
<para>Our under-17 male team went to Tasmania for the national championships, with two ACT players named in the team of the tournament. Raakin Rahman and Jake Smith had some stand-out performances over the week in both batting and bowling. Both were most effective with the bat, finishing second and third respectively in the batting averages for the championship. The ACT young males managed two wins during the week, defeating Western Australia in round 3 and the Northern Territory in the final game of the tournament. A number of games were extremely close and the team were unlucky not to walk away winners.</para>
<para>The under-19 mens male team played five one-day matches and managed to win against Tasmania. The player with the best bowling average was Blake Faunce, who made it into the top 10 bowling averages at nine. He took nine wickets throughout the tournament with a best performance of five for 33.</para>
<para>The under-19 womens team played eight games across the tournament in Perth with a combination of T20s and one day matches. They couldn't quite get a win during the tournament but, from what I've been told, the young team played hard and never gave up. Many of the young women were playing up a couple of age groups. Well done to Grace Lyons who racked up 121 runs across the tournament.</para>
<para>The ACT's Alana Horsfall was named in the team of the tournament following the under-16 female national championships. The ACT managed one win against some tough competition. There were impressive performances by many players during the event, particularly by Alana, Rachel Carroll and the captain, Amber Smith.</para>
<para>I give a huge thank you to all the players, parents, coaching staff, managers, umpires, scorers and supporters who helped all the teams across the championships. Last but not least, I thank the Cricket ACT staff and board, who not only worked tirelessly to ensure the cricket could together but also have a clear vision for the future of cricket in our region.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>McPherson Electorate: Australia Day</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Like many members in this place, I was very pleased to take part in a range of ceremonies and activities on Australia Day. Every year I have the absolute pleasure of being the presiding officer at citizenship ceremonies in my electorate. This year we welcomed nearly 150 new Aussies at beautiful Burleigh in the morning and at Mudgeeraba later in the afternoon.</para>
<para>The joy and gratitude in every new citizen always fills me with pride as a member of federal parliament and as an Australian. Our new Australian citizens told me they had come to our country for a better lifestyle, better opportunities and a better life for their families. While we certainly acknowledge and recognise our histories and the challenges we face, particularly in improving outcomes for Indigenous people, our new citizens remind us that there is so much to unite us all as we go forward. Congratulations to each of our new Australians, particularly those on the Gold Coast who have literally hit the jackpot.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge the magnificent family fun day put on by the Burleigh Heads Rotary Club. Thong-throwing, damper-making and live music made for a fantastic day. Thank you to the whole team at Rotary for putting this event on; our community is much better off because of the work that you do.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to extend my congratulations and thank three extraordinary women on the southern Gold Coast who received official recognition for their outstanding contributions to our community in the Australia Day honours list.</para>
<para>Karen MacLeod received a Medal of the Order of Australia in recognition of her contribution to swimming. Sport, and swimming in particular, is integral to the Gold Coast, and Karen's work in this area has no doubt added to our success in the pool. Congratulations, Karen.</para>
<para>Distinguished Professor Lyn Griffiths was recognised as a Member of the Order of Australia for her studies in genetics and neurological disorders. As a former science minister I congratulate and sincerely thank Lyn for her contribution to this field.</para>
<para>Finally, Detective Senior Sergeant Vanessa Wiseman was honoured with the Australian Police Medal. Vanessa's critical police work, particularly in the areas of domestic and family violence, help to keep our communities safe and secure. In my role as the shadow minister for child protection and prevention of family violence I've heard some pretty harrowing stories, and I can only imagine the challenging situations that Vanessa has faced as head of the police DV unit on the Gold Coast. On behalf of our community I thank her for her service and congratulate her on this most deserved recognition.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Reid Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SITOU</name>
    <name.id>298121</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every year Australia Day gives us an opportunity to celebrate extraordinary Australians who help to make our community the wonderful place it is. I want to recognise some of their contributions here today. Ellen Louie has been the Chairman of the Australian Nursing Home Foundation for over a decade and is recognised with an OAM. Her work has been fundamental in developing and running aged-care facilities across Sydney, with a particular focus on our older Chinese community. I've been able to visit one of these facilities in my electorate, the Bernard Chan Nursing Home in Burwood. It's a wonderful facility where older Chinese-speaking residents can eat familiar food, celebrate Chinese festivals and have care provided to them in their mother tongue.</para>
<para>The late Dr Gregory Kesby was posthumously awarded an AM for his significant service to obstetrics and gynaecology. An obstetrician by training, Dr Kesby's contribution to medicine spanned far beyond his clinical jobs at both the Royal Prince Alfred and King George V hospitals in Sydney. Dr Kesby maintained a number of senior roles on the Medical Council of New South Wales, the Australian Medical Council, the Medical Board of Australia and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. His legacy lives on through the many clinicians he helped to train and the many patients he treated.</para>
<para>Justine Perkins was awarded an OAM for her service to the community. Justine and her husband, John, turned a deeply personal tragedy into an initiative that would go on to have a joyous and profound impact on the lives of so many. The Perkins lost their daughter Olivia when she was just eight months old. She had a rare disease that cut her life far too short. As a way of challenging their immense grief they set up the Touched by Olivia foundation to help communities establish inclusive play spaces called Livvi's Place. There are now more than 20 Livvi's Place playgrounds around Australia, giving all children an opportunity to experience the joy and fun of playgrounds.</para>
<para>Jennifer Collins chairs the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in my electorate. She's been awarded an AM for her service to veterans and their families as well as her service to nursing. I can say firsthand what an extraordinary person Jennifer is, having attended the 80th anniversary of the Kokoda campaign at the memorial last year. I want to thank all of this year's recipients for their incredible contributions to our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flynn Electorate: Environment</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOYCE</name>
    <name.id>299498</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to declare that I am a landholder. I have agricultural businesses that rely on the Great Artesian Basin as their water source. I wish to bring to your urgent attention the fact that Glencore's CTSCo has a proposal to change section 41 of the Queensland Environmental Protection Regulation 2019 to further enable sequestering of carbon dioxide, CO2, supercritical fluid into the precipice sandstone water aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin. Their proposed amendment is shown in the Glencore briefing notes and specifically refers to the likely deterioration in environmental values of the receiving groundwater. Glencore has a trial site at Moonie/Meandarra on the Western Downs and is calling for submissions as part of the environmental impact statement in respect of this project. I have met with Scott Elliott, the operations manager of Glencore, and he has told me that it is their intention to begin coalmining operations at the coal lease at Wandoan in Central Queensland. They hope to build a coal gasification plant at Wandoan and produce hydrogen. The hydrogen will be piped to Gladstone and the CO2 will be piped to their site at Moonie/Meandarra. They also intend to build a hydrogen power station to power the project. Several years ago, Glencore CTSCo had a similar proposal at their property Glenhaven, at Wandoan, adjacent to their coal lease. This project was abandoned due to the significant angst generated in the community at the prospect of polluting the Great Artesian Basin, which the towns of Wandoan and Taroom and many farming families rely on as their principal water source.</para>
<para>To allow Glencore to change the Environmental Protection Regulation, to allow them to potentially pump millions of tons of hypercritical CO2 fluid into the aquifer of the Great Artesian Basin, is absolutely outrageous. The Great Artesian Basin is the world's largest underground potable water source. It covers 70 per cent of the area of Queensland and is the lifeblood of many rural communities and agricultural sectors in Queensland. It is the eighth natural wonder of the world. It is the outback's Great Barrier Reef, in effect. To even contemplate compromising this treasured water asset on the earth's driest habitable continent is absolutely unthinkable madness. CTSCo's own groundwater impact assessment technical report clearly states that any site where CO2 is injected into the precipice water source will, in effect, render it useless to anyone else in future.</para>
<para>I implore you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everybody, to not allow this change in the Queensland Environmental Protection Regulation. The consequences of doing so will potentially lead to the contamination of the Great Artesian Basin, rendering it useless for future generations.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Maribyrnong Electorate: Australia Day, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I was lucky enough to spend the 26 January holiday with members of my wonderfully diverse local community in Maribyrnong. Around 40 per cent of my local residents were born overseas, so we embrace diversity and come together to celebrate it on 26 January at citizenship ceremonies.</para>
<para>One of my stops was in Essendon at the Ukrainian Australia Day celebration. I got to meet refugees from the war in Ukraine supported by our local community. The now famous stoicism and resolve of the Ukrainian people was on display at this event. Many of the refugees were children who are now living in Australia, and I acknowledge the work of Stefan Romaniw and the Ukrainian-Australian community. It was a poignant reminder, on our national day, that we are indeed fortunate to live in a country that knows peace.</para>
<para>I also attended two citizenship ceremonies, where it was my honour to join the newest Australians and celebrate their milestones. The first was at the Hume City Council at Broadmeadows, where the pride of those taking the citizenship pledge or affirmation was palpable. It was a really joyous occasion, and I acknowledge the presence of my colleague the member for Calwell, but I also thank Hume City Council and Mayor Joseph Haweil for allowing me to share it with them.</para>
<para>The second citizenship ceremony was for Moonee Valley City Council, and I thank Mayor Pierce Tyson and the council's CEO, Helen Sui, for asking me to address the gathering. I acknowledge that amongst the other dignitaries there was the local member for Niddrie, Ben Carroll, and councillors Rose Iser, Katrina Hodgson and Sam Byrne. I acknowledge the strength that comes from embracing the traditions and customs of people who have left their birthplaces and chosen our little corner of the world as their home.</para>
<para>But it was the very start of the day that I've kept till last to mention. The Essendon North Rotary Club breakfast featured a speech by former member for Lalor, former federal science minister and national treasure, Barry Jones AC. Barry spoke on the 60,000 years of Aboriginal history, and he made a powerful case for the Voice to Parliament. He said: 'This is not just for the benefit of First Nations people. It is an essential element of being honest with ourselves, to fulfill the human potential of all of us.' It was great to see his longstanding electoral secretary, Kath McDonald, present, along with the first woman deputy speaker of the Victorian parliament, the Hon. Judy Maddigan, in attendance.</para>
<para>On Australia Day, I think many of us now think about the Indigenous history of Australia. I thought about the Wurundjeri Woiwurrung people, who graciously invite us, the residents of Maribyrnong, to leave our footprints on their country. Now, along with all First Nations people, they ask Australians to walk with them, to finally be recognised in the nation's birth certificate, the Constitution. We cannot let them down.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Forde Electorate: Australia Day Awards</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>To follow in the theme of many of the contributions this morning, I too would like to reflect on the Australia Day activities across the electorate of Forde and across the City of Logan. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the winners of the City of Logan Australia Day awards. The Logan Citizen of the Year was Rachel Simpkin-Bale, the Logan Young Citizen of the Year was Amelia Ayris and the Spirit of Logan award winner was Tammy Robinson. I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Beenleigh Rotary Club president Janee Hong, for her terrific work and for the lamingtons and coffee on the morning, and Loganholme Rotary president Sharon Hansen.</para>
<para>As you can see it was a busy day on Australia Day. It started off with the Logan City Council's annual Australia Day awards and citizenship ceremony where we welcomed the newest members to our local communities and highlighted the efforts of those who have made an incredible contribution to the City of Logan through their important advocacy work and volunteering efforts. It was wonderful to welcome 110 new Australian citizens to the City of Logan. Hailing from over 41 countries, our newest Australians represent the next chapter, the next part, of our wonderful multicultural make-up that is Australia. I had the pleasure of delivering the minister's message and sharing a few words in addition to that to welcome them to our community.</para>
<para>As I have mentioned, Citizen of the Year went to Rachel Simpkin-Bale, who has devoted herself to providing vital aid and support to women who have experienced or experience domestic or sexual violence. Through her 30 years of advocacy across a range of state and local bodies she has made substantial progress towards ending violence against women.</para>
<para>Amelia Ayris took out the Young Citizen of the Year award for her incredible volunteer work as a youth ambassador for Bravehearts. At just 16 years of age, Amelia has dedicated herself to advocating for some of the most vulnerable in our community.</para>
<para>Finally, the Spirit of Logan award went to Tammy Robinson. Tammy's work through Formally Ever After truly does represent the spirit of our City of Logan. A free community program Formerly Ever After lends a helping hand to students in need, providing dresses and suits and allowing them to take part in their formal activities.</para>
<para>To all the other nominees for the awards, congratulations on being nominated. Finally, I want to thank the Beenleigh and Loganholme Rotary Clubs. Every year they put on coffee and lamingtons in the community to celebrate Australia Day. Thank you to everybody for their efforts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lalor Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Lollypop Creek Primary School in its first month of operation. It's a brand new school in my electorate. I want to thank Principal Joel Riddle for the opportunity to address the school community of 200 brand new students from prep to grade 6 and to pass along to them a set of Australian flags for their new flagpoles.</para>
<para>Lollypop Creek Primary School carries a story that happens in my electorate every year. There are four new schools across the electorate of Lalor that opened their doors this year. They are the Ngarri Primary School, the Nearnung Primary School and the Karwan Primary School. I want to congratulate principals Honey Stirling, Chris Simmons and Ashley Craig on their appointments and the great beginning to the new school year in these new schools.</para>
<para>In a growth area like ours where people join our community every day, these new schools mark that growth. They also mark the important work that happens in our local community where we build communities from the ground up, where we are focused on inclusion and harmony, and where we are working so hard to ensure that we have cohesion in our community. That work often starts in these brand new schools where we support our local children and where, as a community, we aspire for them.</para>
<para>Along with our new schools, of course, all of the schools across Wyndham have begun this new year of 2023. I want to welcome the many new teachers to our communities who have joined our existing schools and send my best wishes to all the schools across the electorate.</para>
<para>And while I'm talking about the growth corridor and our new schools, and listening to others speak about Australia Day, I would like to report to the House that the CEO of Wyndham City Council informs me that in Wyndham we're expecting 15,000 new citizens through citizenship ceremonies across Wyndham this year. I have attended three or four ceremonies already this year, and will obviously attempt to attend as many as I can get to. But, again, on that theme of building community from the ground up, this is the real work that goes on in the community that I represent here. As I told the children of Lollypop Creek Primary School, my job is to bring their stories to this place so that the 150 other members of the House of Representatives understand who we are, understand our challenges and understand our great achievements.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>119</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Annual Climate Change Statement</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, we've come a long way in the three years since I entered politics on a climate change platform. There is still a long way to go, but there is some progress. I believe that we need to set more ambitious targets and we need to find ways to improve our agility and ways of adopting innovation in policymaking to get us there, and accountability on how we actually measure emissions and impacts from methane and gas. We know that the government have set their ambition at 43 per cent by 2030, and they don't appear to be swaying from that, but thankfully the crossbench secured amendments to the Climate Change Act that was passed last year that clarified that 43 per cent is only a floor for the ambition, not a ceiling. This sent an important signal to the market and to industries that more ambition was needed and was possible.</para>
<para>Another important amendment, which I moved, to the Climate Change Act was the annual climate change statement, and Minister Bowen delivered the first of these in December. That was a very welcome initiative of transparency and accountability, and I believe it's an important document to be received annually in this place.</para>
<para>What was notable about Minister Bowen's statement was that the government believe that, after only six months in office, they are on track to now achieve 40 per cent emissions reductions by 2030. This means, as I have been saying for some 3½ years already, that with the right policies and a little more pressure we could see Australia far exceed 43 per cent by 2030. We have the capacity and the technology, we just need the political will in this place to pull the levers and set in place the regulatory framework that enables the investment and transition to happen as fast as possible.</para>
<para>The International Energy Agency has made clear that we can have no new oil, coal or gas projects opened up if we want to keep temperatures as close to 1.5 degrees as possible. We see countries around the world rocked by successive tragedies and disasters of a scale unimaginable. Here in Australia, on the east coast, we've seen flooding on a scale that has just never been seen before. We've seen the bushfires of 2019. We see these events rock our communities time and time again, and more and more frequently now, and so we must find the political will to act with more urgency.</para>
<para>So I am critical of this government because, despite this commitment, there is a level of greenwashing if it is also going to continue approving gas projects and extending coalmine licences. We now have the prospect of PEP-11 on the coastline between Newcastle and Manly. We see the PEP-11 gas exploration area reopened for decision by the joint authority as a result of the consent orders in the court proceedings. I will strongly oppose that, and I pledge to my community and to the communities along the east coast that we will absolutely be fighting and advocating for this application to be rejected.</para>
<para>The Narrabri gas fracking continues towards production, despite strong opposition from so many local communities, despite the International Energy Agency clearly stating we must—must!—stop new gas projects. And just last week the Lake Vermont coalmine approval was extended—until 2063! Now, seriously! It is greenwashing by the government if it is on the one hand going to extend those kinds of licences but on the other say that it is committed to reducing emissions. We need to be very clear that we need to reduce gross emissions. It's not enough to just say: 'On net, on a balancing of the budget, we're going to get there.' We actually have to reduce gross emissions, and that does mean no longer extending coalmine licences and not approving new licences for gas extraction or coalmining.</para>
<para>In relation to the statement, it is comprehensive, and I welcome that, but it can be improved in a couple of key items. It should include an analysis and direction statements in relation to key sectors of the economy. The report contains emissions projections which actually show an increase in emissions between now and 2030 from fugitive emissions, from land use, agriculture and transport. We need to reduce emissions across the board. I accept that some sectors will be slower than others—that they have a more difficult situation and the technology is not as advanced—but that does not exempt them from needing to reduce emissions. We can't have a situation of increasing gross emissions. We must reduce them.</para>
<para>The electricity sector transition is expected to contribute 90 per cent of the emissions reductions to 2030. I would say that is an unfair or uneven burden on just that sector, and there must still be pressure and focus on the other sectors to reduce emissions.</para>
<para>The statements should include targets for the five-year periods post 2030. I've spoken many times in this place of the need to provide long-term certainty and a clear road map to business and to industry on how they may drive their investments so that there can be confidence of investment—especially when we're talking manufacturing—around innovation and new technologies.</para>
<para>The annual statement has Australia on track for an emissions reduction of only 48 per cent by 2035, including the safeguard mechanism reforms and the electricity target. Now, that is not good enough. We absolutely must have a much more ambitious target for the next nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, which is for 2035, or we will have to be honest with communities about the kinds of disruption, upheaval, uncertainty, risk and catastrophic events that are likely to occur and accelerate and rock those communities.</para>
<para>We absolutely must introduce much better monitoring, reporting and validation of methane emissions. And before the Nationals cry out about cows and say I'm against cattle, this is about gas production. The largest proportion of methane emissions is in fact from gas extraction, and then in the transport and export of gas, and yet we still don't have a system that properly monitors that. Companies are permitted to simply give an estimate and an averaging of what they believe methane emissions are. That is just not good enough.</para>
<para>I believe strongly, as many others do, that it's time to start talking about what our next nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement should be. At COP27, we learnt that the current commitments are not enough to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees. We need to accelerate ambition. This is a race, and we are barely on the start line. It's time to accelerate. We must commit—and I strongly push the government to do so—to a 75 per cent emissions reduction by 2035. This is a realistic target and a necessary target. Let's be clear: it is a necessary target if we want any hope of net zero really being meaningful and any hope of holding warming to somewhere close to 1.5 degrees.</para>
<para>In fact, the UK has already committed to reducing emissions by 78 per cent by 2035. New South Wales is aiming at 70 per cent by 2035. Victoria is aiming at 75 to 80 per cent by 2035.</para>
<para>Now, I shouldn't have to explain the implications of not acting. Those are clear, from a safety point of view for our communities. But let's be clear about the economic imperative as well. It's essential for business and investment to know the trajectory post 2030. Increasing our ambition is necessary to attract the investment that is flooding towards green projects in other jurisdictions. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act has already started to generate trillions of dollars of investment in US green industries and manufacturing of batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels and associated manufacturing. Australia needs to at least match the ambition of the US to credentialise itself as a partner in the development of new green global supply chains and benefit from the global economic shifts that are taking place.</para>
<para>For me and my electorate of Warringah, the opportunities presented by this green economy transition have always been top of mind when we talk about solving this climate crisis. It is such a fallacy to talk about the cost of transition. It is the opportunity of transition. Deloitte Access Economics forecasts that we could add over 250,000 jobs and $680 billion to the Australian economy by pursuing policies to get us back to net zero.</para>
<para>So I believe we need stronger targets and we need to increase ambition. But I say to Minister Bowen, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, that I welcome the statement. I look forward to working to increase the government's ambition. We need more guidance for the future. The investment sector, business and manufacturing are waiting, ready, willing and able to assist the government in this transition.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With the election of the Albanese government in May last year, the people of Australia unequivocally voted to end the climate and energy wars. We all hoped that, soon afterwards, so did this parliament. Certainly, from our side of the parliament and from the crossbench, those wars are done with. Unfortunately, as is becoming increasingly clear, the opposition under this opposition leader wants the war to continue.</para>
<para>After a decade of climate and renewable energy denial, disaster and neglect, the Albanese government is taking strong action on the climate and the environment and is seizing the job opportunities that come from the promotion and growth of a renewable economy and a renewable energy future. Following on from the statement from the member for Warringah, I say that of course there will be debates about whether we should be going further and sooner, but we think we've got the balance right. We've spoken widely to all stakeholders in developing this policy that we've taken to the parliament and to the people at an election, and we're confident we've got the balance right.</para>
<para>As a first step, we've enshrined in law our emissions reduction target of 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050, ensuring that this is an obvious and effective target that is actively worked towards, not against. The Australian government is also supporting the transformation of our regions, which have always powered Australia. We are putting downward pressure on energy prices with affordable renewables, all while reducing emissions, which, of course, is good and necessary for our climate. Indeed, five out of six new jobs under Powering Australia will be delivered in the regions, not least in my home state of Tasmania.</para>
<para>Late last year, the parliament passed the Climate Change Bill, which was the first real climate change bill that had been brought to this parliament in a decade. At its core, it tasked the Climate Change Authority to provide advice on Australia's progress against climate reduction targets and to advise on new targets under the Paris Agreement, which will include a 2035 target. The Climate Change Authority must be a trusted adviser to government on climate targets, yet under the previous government there was first an attempt to abolish the authority, and when that didn't work they settled on gutting it completely—a modus operandi they put across all levels of government, it must be said. And gut it they did—so much so that the Climate Change Authority was not even providing advice on climate targets to the government of the day. That's how blind the Liberal-National coalition have been to our climate, to our environment and, frankly, to our economy. So steadfast in their denial of climate change are they that they actively defunded and ignored the agency that had been set in place to provide advice to government on one of the greatest challenges facing this country and, indeed, the entire world.</para>
<para>The 2022 bill also required the minister for climate change to report annually to parliament on progress in meeting our targets, which, of course, is what this government is doing right now with this annual statement. How refreshing it is to have a government in charge that takes responsibility for the climate and for the future of renewable energy, instead of seeking to deny, cover up, ignore and fudge the evidence of the impact climate change is having on our lands and our economy. I remind people in this place that it was the current Leader of the Opposition—with two former Liberal prime ministers, it must be said—who laughed at the impact of climate change on our closest neighbours as they combat the very real impacts of rising sea levels. How any member of the opposition has the face to stand in this place and speak to this statement about climate change is beyond me; they absolutely lack credibility on climate.</para>
<para>I implore members of the opposition who share our understanding of the impacts of climate change and who believe that the science is real: do more in your party room; stand up and be heard. At the moment, it's the naysayers, the deniers, those who have led the war for the last 10 years, putting politics above science and the reality that climate change is real—they're the ones winning your party room debates. You've got to stand up and be heard in the Liberal and Nationals party rooms to ensure that these climate change wars are finally put behind us.</para>
<para>During the 2022 federal election, Labor made its position clear: the future is in renewables. Renewable energy means both lower emissions and a stronger economy. Under the Albanese government, no longer will it be the policy of the government to hold back investment in renewable energy. Under the leadership of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Australia has seen the renewable energy market grow from strength to strength, and it will continue to do so. Investment certainty has now returned to this market. The private sector knows that it has a government in charge that believes in the future of renewable energy, and we are seeing investors flock to the sector. Already electric vehicle sales in Australia are up 86 per cent since last year. We are catching up at a cracking pace after being left behind for the last 10 years, but there is still more to do. That is why the Australian government has made changes to the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act, making electric, hydrogen and plug-in hybrid cars below the luxury car tax threshold exempt from the fringe benefits tax. In action, this slashes the cost for employers to switch their fleets to EVs, which means more electric vehicles on our roads and lower emissions. In real figures, that's a saving of up to $12½ thousand on the purchase of an EV for an employee. At the same time, individuals can save up to $4,300. No wonder we've seen EV sales skyrocket this year. The demand is there from the public, and finally it's being met. This government has made owning EVs more affordable and more accessible.</para>
<para>At the same time, we are ensuring that our Driving the Nation plan becomes reality, with an investment of $500 million into the national EV charging network. This means there will be charging stations at intervals of 150 kilometres on major roads across Australia. Charging technology is improving all the time. It takes a little time these days to charge an EV, but that waiting time will progressively become less and less over time, which will make EVs even more appealing. Those opposite scorned a future with electric vehicles. One of the most disgraceful acts during the 2019 federal election was senior members of the Liberal Party—not least the former Liberal Prime Minister—saying that Labor was 'ending the weekend' with our policy on electric vehicles. It was great for a headline, great on TV, but absolutely damning for national policy. It put electric vehicle policy in this country back three years, but this government is turning that around.</para>
<para>Under the Australian government's Powering Australia and Rewiring the Nation plans, we are putting renewable energy and clean energy futures at the forefront of our agenda. This has commenced already, with our investments in rewiring the nation being fast-tracked for critical projects in Tasmania. The fast-tracking of the Marinus Link in Tasmania will deliver two undersea transmission cables to connect Tasmania and Victoria. It has been a long talked about and long neglected project, but Labor is making it happen. It took this government no time to commit funding and get the show on the road when we came to power. Marinus Link will support 1,400 jobs in Tasmania and another 1,400 jobs in Victoria during the construction phase. It will also provide a strong boost to the Tasmanian and national economy with up to $4½ billion in positive net market benefits. It's through the leadership and investment of this government, this Minister for Climate Change and Energy and this Prime Minister that my home state of Tasmania has a brighter and cleaner energy future ahead of it, one that has secure jobs at its centre and, of course, fewer emissions in our power structures.</para>
<para>Our commitment to renewable energy doesn't stop with Marinus in Tasmania. The Albanese Labor government has invested in the future of secure Tasmanian jobs and manufacturing by helping to kickstart the LINE Hydrogen project in the north of the state. LINE Hydrogen is working to produce Australia's first operational commercial-scale hydrogen facility, and, thanks to the Albanese government, it will call Tasmania home. Hydrogen is a very exciting prospect for renewables. I could go on and on about Labor's commitment to climate change and renewable futures, but I'll leave it there. It's fantastic to see that the war has ended from our side, and I only hope the Liberal and National parties see sense and end the war from their perspectives as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHANDLER-MATHER</name>
    <name.id>300121</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At the beginning of this year the world's climate scientists at the WMO formally declared that the last eight years had been the hottest on record. This record heat coincides with the highest ever levels of coal and gas burnt in a single year, trapping more heat in our atmosphere and oceans. Our home is burning before our very eyes—sometimes literally—and the government is currently acting like everything is fine, despite the fact that it's abundantly clear we are in an emergency. We know what is causing this crisis: ultimately, it is the burning of coal, oil and gas. But, really, on that front nothing is changing; in fact, it is going to get worse. The Albanese government, like the Morrison government before them, want to add more fuel to this devastating fire.</para>
<para>One of the documents tabled with Minister Bowen's Annual Climate Change Statement was the department's <inline font-style="italic">Australia</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline><inline font-style="italic">s emissions projections 2022</inline> report. The document lists seven more projects that they are expecting will open over the next seven years—seven more! There's the carbon bomb of the Beetaloo basin in the Northern Territory, which could release up to four to seven more times more emissions than Adani; Woodside's Scarborough and Browse fields in WA and their LNG terminal on the Burrup Peninsula; Santos' Narrabri fracking fields; Shell's Crux field near Darwin; and a series of other unspecified fracking fields in Queensland. We know that the release of methane and gas is one of the biggest contributors to climate change and in fact methane is over 80 times more potent than CO2 when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere. We also know, by the way, that Woodside and Santos were some of the biggest donors to the Labor Party in the lead-up to this federal election.</para>
<para>This is straight-up climate denial. If you understand and appreciate that the burning of coal, oil and gas is what is driving climate change and your government's response is to project the opening of new coal, oil and gas projects over the next 10 years, then that is tantamount to, functionally, behaving as if you see no connection between the opening of new coal and gas projects and the driving of climate change. The International Energy Agency has said that to meet net zero by 2050—our target put into law last year—not one new project can be built. But the Albanese government isn't just satisfied with one—or seven. There are 111 more coal and gas projects in the pipeline to start by the end of this decade.</para>
<para>But for the government even that is not enough. In the most recent federal budget, we saw over $40 billion of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry listed over the next four years. There's not enough money for dental into Medicare. There's not enough money to build enough social and affordable homes for everyone who needs one. There's not enough money to bring mental health into Medicare or tackle the cost-of-living crisis, but there is $40 billion for some of the wealthiest multinational corporations in the world.</para>
<para>You can't have it both ways. You do actually have to choose. Do you want to achieve your legislated climate targets, or do you want new coal and gas? By the way, in the latest climate report, the government's not even on track for their weak 43 per cent emissions reduction target. Let's be clear. The world is on track to shoot past the 1½ degree limit by the end of the decade; in fact, we're on track for 2.7 degrees, which will throw our societies into chaos.</para>
<para>Indeed, the life we know today will be unrecognisable to our children. We're on track for 2.7 degrees of warming and we'll be getting over 1½ degrees of warming by the end of this decade, which means we'll see more bushfires, floods, natural disasters, collapses in parts of our crucial food systems, rising sea levels, the movement of hundreds of millions if not, ultimately, billions of climate refugees displaced from their homes, and the collapse of a lot of the systems that our world currently relies on to feed, house and protect the billions of people on this planet.</para>
<para>Over the last few years Australia has seen a preview of what this is going to look like in events such as the bushfires in 2019 emerging straight into the floods. After the floods I remember hauling furniture out of poor and working-class people's homes in parts of my electorate, and knowing that they didn't have enough money to go anywhere else. I knew that they had to crowdfund just to get enough money to find another home. Those are the sorts of direct material consequences of decisions that people in this place make when giving money to coal and gas corporations to allow the opening up of new coal, oil and gas projects. These events are a direct consequence of decisions that the government has already made, including approving a coalmine that will mine and export coal past 2060, according to the approval.</para>
<para>If we are still exporting coal and gas past 2050, we can forget about even 2.7 degrees of warming—we'll be blowing well past that. I don't know how you logically have in your heads, on the one hand, the idea that it is sustainable to continue to expand the export of coal and gas while literally assuming that under your government's policies we'll be exporting coal and gas past 2050 and, on the other hand, talk solemnly about the consequences of climate change. You're causing that; that is a consequence of your government's policies.</para>
<para>Another issue to consider is that beyond the $40 billion of subsidies, we know that in the last reportable tax year the top 20 coal, oil and gas corporations made $150 billion in revenue. Can anyone take a guess at how much tax they paid on that revenue? It wasn't zero dollars, which I was surprised by; it was $30. Not only do we have the subsidy, not only do we have the knowledge that the coal, oil and gas corporations are driving this climate crisis but we literally have government policies that allow these corporations to destroy our planet and make war profits on their huge revenues whilst we're not taxing them properly.</para>
<para>This government should recognise that we need to rapidly transition out of coal, oil and gas. In the years that we are transitioning, the government should make those corporations pay their fair share in tax. Imagine if we had the sort of sovereign wealth fund that Norway has, a trillion dollars that we could put towards transitioning the affected regional communities. With a trillion dollars we could invest in health and education services that those communities need and revive manufacturing in those communities. Right now the planet is cooking and the money made by those corporations is going into either the coffers of the major parties in the form of donations or the pockets of shareholders.</para>
<para>Over the next few years Australians will increasingly realise that the behaviour of this government is hardly different from the behaviour of the previous government, when you think about the government subsidising the opening up and exporting of coal, oil and gas. That is what the Greens will be focusing on in the next few years. When legislation covering the government's safeguard mechanism comes up for debate in parliament, we'll be focusing on the fact that this still does not deal with the opening up of new coal, oil and gas reserves.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEI</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>GH (—) (): I rise to speak about one of Australia's greatest climate scientists, the late Professor Will Steffen who died at the end of January aged 75. Will Steffen was born in Norfolk, Nebraska, and trained as a chemist at the University of Missouri before getting his PhD at the University of Florida in 1975. He came to Australia with his wife, Carrie, in the late 1970s after a detour working for the Peace Corps in rural Fiji. He did a post-doc at ANU and then joined the CSIRO as an editor and information officer. He quickly became one of the leaders in the emerging field of geosphere-biosphere analysis. He helped to bring together disparate fields of ecology, biology, oceanography and climate research into a larger study of earth system science. He moved to Stockholm from 1998 to 2004 as executive director of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and then, when he returned to Australia, quickly became an adviser to the federal government on issues of climate. He became director of the ANU Fenner School of Environment and Society and the inaugural director of the ANU Climate Change Institute.</para>
<para>Australians came to know him best as a foundation member of the Australian Climate Commission, which was dissolved, as he put it, within what 'seemed like hours' of the election of the Abbott government in 2013. In response, Will Steffen and his fellow commissioners Tim Flannery, Lesley Hughes and Amanda McKenzie launched a crowdfunding campaign, raising more than $1 million in a single week, enabling them to set up the Climate Council.</para>
<para>As a researcher, he was a significant advocate of the concept of the Anthropocene—the idea that humanity has entered a new geological age. He is known for a 2009 paper, 'A safe operating space for humanity', with Johan Rockstrom and others, which was published in <inline font-style="italic">Nature</inline> and introduced the concept of planetary boundaries. He and his co-authors identified nine planetary-scale processes that regulate the stability of the Earth's system. That later turned from a paper in <inline font-style="italic">Nature</inline> to a documentary on Netflix narrated by David Attenborough, brilliantly illustrating the way in which Will Steffen was at the forefront of science and the forefront of science communication.</para>
<para>He continued to appear regularly in the media, where he was always willing to take on climate change deniers. I recall a forum at the Canberra Labor Club in Belconnen in which he talked calmly about the science and the importance of acting on climate change. That earned him vitriol on social media and a number of death threats, but he was undeterred and continued to speak out about the concerns that he had for the planet's future, presenting the scientific data rigorously and calmly in a jargon-free way in which Australians could understand it.</para>
<para>He was a keen Canberran. I mentioned just now the way in which he engaged in the local Belconnen forum. He was always speaking at local Canberra forums and loved his adopted city. He co-founded the Canberra Urban and Regional Futures initiative in 2010, and he said of it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">How we design, build and live in cities of the 21st century is a daunting research challenge. What better place to start meeting this challenge than in our own city and region? And what better way to build the required knowledge than through collaboration among our region's research institutions.</para></quote>
<para>He was concerned about the need for acting and concerned that the risks didn't sit equally on the sides of acting too fast and acting too slowly. As he said in an interview with the <inline font-style="italic">Guardian</inline> in 2018, discussing tipping points:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Maybe we have 20 to 25 years and then we might be committed to losing Greenland.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But the time we have left to intervene to stabilise coral reefs, for example, is a lot less than 30 years.</para></quote>
<para>He concluded:</para>
<quote><para class="block">To err on the side of danger is a stupid thing to do.</para></quote>
<para>He was extraordinarily generous to me as a member of parliament and as an author. When I wrote a book called <inline font-style="italic">What's the Worst That Could Happen? Existential Risk and Extreme Politics</inline>, it included a chapter on climate change. I sent the chapter through in draft form to Will Steffen. He came back very speedily with a series of line edits which were generous, incisive and detailed, and I dealt with all of his suggestions and produced a better book as a result—though, I'm sure, not as good a book as Will Steffen would have written if he'd been writing on the same topic.</para>
<para>He was a keen outdoorsman. He enjoyed trekking and hiking, from the Himalayas to the wildest parts of Australia. He carried out extreme ascents in the New Zealand Southern Alps and the Canadian Rockies and was part of a 1998 ANU Mountaineering Club expedition to climb the 7,000-metre Mount Baruntse in Nepal. He wrote the definitive history of Australian Himalayan climbing, <inline font-style="italic">Himalayan Dreaming</inline>. Here I'm indebted to an article by Carrie Steffen, John Finnigan and David Finnigan which ran in the Fairfax papers, in which they quoted Will Steffen as saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Climbing is like science. To get up a hard rock or ice climb, just like when you're solving a problem in the carbon cycle, you have to be ultra-focused, you have to make holistic decisions and you have to be absolutely aware of your surroundings. When you come off a big climb, you really appreciate the beauty of what's around you. That's the buzz you get in science when you solve a big problem and suddenly see how it all fits together.</para></quote>
<para>His wife of 51 years, Carrie Steffen, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">He was a wonderful, kind and passionate man and he was the same as a husband.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">He was the most marvellous companion and the best dinner companion I would ever have, and ever will have. He brought the world to me.</para></quote>
<para>I offer my particular condolences to Carrie and to Will and Carrie's daughter, Sonja. Will Steffen was a remarkable Australian, an extraordinary Canberran and a citizen of the world, and we're lucky to have had his contribution on climate change and on helping to shape a better planet.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>125</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6953" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>125</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill, I thank the minister for introducing this bill, which involves a very important piece of legislation. It carries on the Albanese Labor government's attempts to modernise our health system and our health regulatory environment.</para>
<para>We've had 10 years of stagnation. Of course, the previous government was a very tired old government. I feel a bit sorry for the previous health minister. He failed to respond, in many ways, to the challenges of our health system, as did his predecessors in the Liberal-National government. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, which held an inquiry into how we approve new drugs and devices for use by the Australian population. The previous health minister didn't even give us the courtesy of a response to that report, <inline font-style="italic">The </inline><inline font-style="italic">new fr</inline><inline font-style="italic">ontier</inline>, as indeed he didn't even give us the courtesy of a response to our previous report, which was on juvenile arthritis.</para>
<para>This bill is a continuation of the Albanese government's plans to modernise and bring up to date our health system and our health regulatory system. When I saw this legislation was listed for debate, I simply couldn't pass up the opportunity to speak on it. As a paediatrician, I believe in the science and the expertise behind our health system, and I wholeheartedly support the independent experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. This is a body that has a critical role in making evidence based decisions about the medications we use in Australia and about the devices we use in medicine—for example, things like joint replacements, cardiac catheters, pacemakers and a whole range of different devices that are used in health care in Australia. The TGA has a critical role in keeping Australians safe when it comes to consuming pharmaceuticals and using devices in health care. It takes on evidence from industry and from professionals.</para>
<para>I've no hesitation in standing here today to support this bill. Under the amendments to the TGA Act via the therapeutic goods amendment bill, issues with devices and some pharmaceuticals that we use in health care are identified to enable complications and problems that may occur in their use to be notified in a systematic way, and to enable the TGA to recommend the withdrawal of approval or special restrictions on use of certain devices. It improves the mandatory reporting of adverse events by expanding the categories of people who can report adverse events, and it assists in addressing some of the other issues that can be involved in using medications and devices in Australia. We have at the moment, particularly following the pandemic, supply chain issues, and it may well be that there are shortages of certain medications and certain medical treatments—even different tests that are used in biochemistry, haematology et cetera. This will enable alternatives to be used and accessed very quickly. So it's very important in ongoing monitoring of health care.</para>
<para>In Australia, we now use very complex methods of treatment for a whole range of conditions, including cancer, cardiac disease and some autoimmune diseases, such as SLE or lupus. Some immune disorders are treated using biological medications that are genetically targeted, and this legislation will help monitor their use for some often very rare disorders and enable complications to be reported very quickly. It will do the same for the newer medical devices that are now used in, for example, minimally invasive cardiac surgery to do things like replacing heart valves and repairing congenital heart defects, holes in the heart and other conditions. It will enable very quick reporting of complications to the TGA and notification of those complications to physicians and also to the general public.</para>
<para>Currently, the sponsors of medical devices and device manufacturers are required to report adverse events relating to medical devices to the TGA as part of an incident reporting and investigation scheme. This tightens up the regulations and allows more people to be able to report those complications. I know from my experience working in the public hospital system that previously the reporting of these adverse events was often delayed because of, perhaps, investigations by the local hospital or the lack of one person designated to report adverse events or the lack of a systemic collection of data. This legislation will enable that data collection to be improved. It is, I might say, a really long-overdue improvement in those reporting conditions and in the ability to report to a central body, the TGA. We've seen many, many problems in the past because there has been either no reporting of adverse events or a delay in reporting adverse events in a systematic and systemic way. So this is really long-overdue legislation.</para>
<para>It attempts to reduce the regulatory burden for people who manufacture in Australia, particularly things like biological medications and devices. It makes it easier by having a streamlined marketing approval pathway for treatments, particularly biologicals that are used for export, and it supports innovation and investment in biologicals and also manufacturing in Australia.</para>
<para>There have, of course, been several devices that in latter years have been found to cause severe complications and adverse events in many, many patients. This includes a particular hip replacement, which was a metal-on-metal hip replacement for the ball-and-socket joint at the top of the femur. There were adverse events but, because of delays in reporting, it was not realised that there were such large numbers involved until, unfortunately, it eventually came to legal action. That's when it became apparent that there were actually large numbers of the complications involved. Many of those complications had not been reported to the central body, the TGA. So this is an attempt to avoid problems like this. Also, people may remember the surgical mesh that was used as part of many operations to improve continence in people who had what's called uterine prolapse. The vaginal mesh was used for this surgery as well as other types of gynaecological surgery to try and prevent prolapse of the uterus, but it caused severe surgical complications in a number of women and, unfortunately, again, did not come to general notice until legal action was proposed. This is a failure of regulation in the health system which this legislation will attempt to address.</para>
<para>If we can work together with industry to mitigate the risk of these occurrences, it will guarantee that people receive treatment which is of the best quality, and people who are administering these treatments can feel confident once the device is approved by the TGA that ongoing monitoring of side effects and complications will occur in a timely manner, which will help improve our health system overall. It will also improve our public and private hospital systems, and it will make patients more confident in the treatment they are receiving to know that any complications will be reported in a timely and appropriate manner.</para>
<para>During a recent visit to PNG as part of a parliamentary group looking at healthcare in that country, it was easy for me to see there how unregulated health systems for things like medications and devices can lead to major problems. We are lucky in Australia to have a system like the TGA, but this is, again, an improvement on that system.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Macarthur, I've also heard countless stories from constituents who've expressed their concerns about being able to access critical medications which they require urgently. Recently I was contacted by a patient of mine who has a rare neurological condition called myasthenia gravis and was very concerned about the lack of availability of a particular medication that is used and can be life-saving for people with myasthenia gravis. With the help of the minister's office, I was able to finally work out what alternatives were available. This legislation will help make it much, much easier for physicians and the general public to access that information and for the alternative medications to be made available to patients. It is very important, particularly for people who are facing shortages of either devices or treatments, that they can use an alternative for their current therapy when supply-chain difficulties mean the primary medication or treatment that they're on becomes unavailable.</para>
<para>Another patient contacted me about the lack of availability of a certain flanged enteral feeding tube, which is a tube that goes from the abdomen into the stomach, to provide food for their child. Unfortunately, because of supply-chain difficulties, they'd run out, and it took us a long time to find out what alternatives were available. This legislation will help in that kind of situation.</para>
<para>A pivotal aspect of this bill is to provide an expansion of the secretary's information-gathering powers to guarantee efficient and timely responses if there are side effects or complications. The expansion of this power of gathering data is very, very important and is very relevant. For issues where there may be concerns expressed in one place, the information gathering can now look Australia-wide. It makes third parties who want to notify the TGA of complications more confident that their information will be taken on board and used seriously. This bill will also remove merits review rights for decisions by the secretary to require the provision of information or documents, to prevent those pathways being used to delay provision of information about complications. That is also very important.</para>
<para>I should also mention in finishing that I have the utmost confidence in the TGA, having worked closely, in my role in the chair of the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport, with them and with the professionals involved. I was very saddened to hear of the proposed retirement of Professor John Skerritt, the head of the TGA, to take place in April this year. He is one of the very best public servants I have ever met. Australia should be incredibly grateful for the systems that he has introduced over the 11 years he's been in charge and for the way he has helped modernise the TGA to deal with the expanding range of new treatments, medications and devices that are becoming available in the 21st century. This is expanding in an exponential way, and we have done very well, particularly during the pandemic, because of the work of Professor John Skerritt. I am very grateful for his service to this country. He is a great Australian, and I will certainly miss him.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House. It's another way that the Albanese Labor government—in particular, the Minister for Health and Aged Care—is helping to modernise our health system.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs McINTOSH</name>
    <name.id>281513</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. I note the carriage of the legislation by the Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care and the work in this space by the member for Macarthur. I also acknowledge my colleague the member for Monash for speaking as he did on this bill previously. I want to acknowledge that the coalition supports this bill. I think that the member for Macarthur was a little harsh on the former minister for health. He had a serious pandemic to deal with, at the time of the release of these reports, and he did an extraordinary job in steering our country through the worst of those times.</para>
<para>I have personal reasons for supporting the bill. My mother had a hernia operation using mesh and had a very difficult time afterwards. I can understand the struggles and difficulties that many people, particularly women across this country, face when something that is meant to cure your issues instead leads to a lot of pain with not much resolution. These people have had mesh implants for various reasons.</para>
<para>The bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to implement a number of measures that seek to ensure the continued access to critical prescription medicines and support the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening post-market monitoring and compliance. I will speak further on this later in my contribution. The bill also introduces a framework of requirements for the mandatory reporting of adverse event information by hospitals across Australia, and I think that is extremely important for patient safety. In particular, I think about how much this mechanism may assist further in the issues of mesh implants.</para>
<para>A 2017 Senate inquiry looked into mesh implants and medical devices, developed in the late 1990s, which later caused widespread complications for many women across the country. This investigation emphasised the need for improvements in safeguarding patient safety through post-market monitoring, to ensure early detection of adverse events related to medical devices. It is beneficial for patients and clinicians to ensure that such devices are safe and effective. If devices need to be changed to provide for this, then that is what must happen to ensure that healthcare consumers are treated correctly. We all hope that they are not receiving those implants in the first place.</para>
<para>The Senate Community Affairs References Committee report of March 2018, <inline font-style="italic">N</inline><inline font-style="italic">umber of </inline><inline font-style="italic">w</inline><inline font-style="italic">omen in Australia who have had </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">ransvaginal </inline><inline font-style="italic">m</inline><inline font-style="italic">esh </inline><inline font-style="italic">i</inline><inline font-style="italic">mplants and </inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">elated </inline><inline font-style="italic">m</inline><inline font-style="italic">atters</inline><inline font-style="italic">,</inline> listed 13 recommendations. Recommendation 1 noted that adverse event reporting plays a vital role in post-market surveillance, and proposed a scheme of mandatory reporting by health practitioners. The July 2021 government response to the recommendations of the report saw the previous coalition government having completed each of the 13 recommendations, bar recommendation 11, being noted, and recommendation 1, being substantially completed. The bill will assist the latter measure to support improved monitoring of safety signals and facilitate earlier detection and timely action to prevent adverse events and patient harm. Further, the bill will introduce a new dedicated marketing approval pathway for export-only biologicals and will support activities to relieve medicine shortages budget enabling the secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation and supply of overseas prescription medicines that are substitutes for medicines that were previously approved in Australia. Additionally, this bill will support the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening post-market monitoring and compliance activities by introducing a general power for the secretary to require a new person to provide information or documents that are relevant to contravention or possible contravention of the act or related regulations and it will also assist in showing a better compliance arrangement.</para>
<para>The bill seeks to amend the act to also reduce regulatory burden by providing for an extension of time to pay amounts under an infringement notice, and for meeting therapeutic goods advertising that is directed exclusively to certain health professionals. Additionally, the bill will provide safeguards for patient safety in therapeutic goods advertising by allowing the secretary to withdraw the approval of the use of a restrictive representation in an advertisement about the therapeutic goods if new information about the good's efficacy comes available. Finally, the bill makes a number of minor amendments, principally to improve the clarity and consistency of regulatory requirements.</para>
<para>Although this side of the chamber and the coalition support the necessary intention of this bill, which is aimed at strengthening the safe use of therapeutic goods, we have some concern pertaining to the removal of a merits review right mechanism for decisions made by the secretary to require the provision of information or documents. I know, as an opposition spokesperson across the health space, that I, Senator Ruston—as a lead—and the member for Braddon will keep a close eye on how this process rolls out, and we will hold the government to account if these new powers end up straying from the policy intent of this amendment in the bill.</para>
<para>In considering the serious concerns at the moment for the availability of certain prescription medications, the coalition also calls on the Albanese Labor government to take further and urgent action to ensure the availability of critical medicines for Australians who rely on them every single day. Recent reporting has shown that the out-of-pocket cost for a GP consultation has risen to $60 or more for some people, and the cost to fill a script is around $55. This is occurring at the same time that the cost of living is rising, in particular household energy bills. We know with the recent interest rate rises for mortgage repayments that Australians certainly are feeling the pressure of these cost-of-living rises. We never want to have someone having to make a decision about whether they purchase medicines or put food on the table. Along with ensuring continued access to critical medicines for all Australians, the government must take action to relieve the cost-of-living pressures for families who are struggling to afford the cost of consults and scripts so they can continue to have these medicines. Action to ensure continued access to critical health care must include a plan to relieve these significant cost-of-living pressures.</para>
<para>In conclusion, the coalition supports the bill as it will assist Australian patients and people who have gone through extraordinary pain, particularly through mesh implants, to ensure a more compliant-safe and accessible medicine market.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr REID</name>
    <name.id>300126</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I want to thank members who have spoken on this piece of legislation today and commend the work of the assistant minister and minister on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022. This bill, this legislation, is going to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in a number of key areas that I believe to be quite important. The purpose of these amendments are to principally to improve the post-market monitoring of adverse events related to medical devices. This is a key aspect of this legislation that I am going to touch on quite significantly here today. It will: reduce the regulatory burden for sponsors of export-only biologicals—biologicals, as we know, are an extremely important form of medication in treating, in particular, immune and autoimmune diseases; strengthen compliance and enforcement activities; update the regulation of advertising on therapeutic goods; and, finally, strengthen options for dealing with medication shortages, which is an issue, not only in my home electorate but right across the country. All of these key changes are vital in supporting improvements to the safety of the patient, reduce ongoing regulatory burdens, support timely access to therapeutic goods, and enhance compliance and enforcement activities.</para>
<para>Let's get down to the nitty-gritty of what we're here to do today—talk about this bill. As a parliamentarian and as a doctor who continues to practise in the emergency department, I am all about what the specifics of this legislation are trying to achieve, especially when patient safety has the chance to be improved. As a practising clinician in our emergency departments in our hospitals, I know that patient safety is paramount, so any opportunity to analyse and improve on this area is absolutely welcome.</para>
<para>This bill will introduce requirements for mandatory reporting by hospitals of adverse events involving medical devices and for improving the monitoring of the safe use of medical devices in Australia. This focus on adverse event monitoring is absolutely crucial, absolutely vital. Adverse event monitoring is not only essential for patient safety but it's really important for strengthening that therapeutic alliance between clinician and patient, and also between government, the health bureaucracy and the patient as well. These changes will likely help mitigate device related risks and allow for safety and ongoing use, because, at the end of the day, what we're trying to achieve through this legislation and many others is preventing serious injury. We're trying to prevent serious harm or deterioration of the patient in our health service, including death. An important focus of adverse event monitoring is information and data collection, as this will allow for and help ensure that clinicians and relevant staff have access to the most up-to-date and clinically relevant information when assessing, diagnosing and, more importantly, treating patients in our health service, whether that be in our emergency departments or in our intensive care units, on the ward or in the community.</para>
<para>To move further, this bill also looks to introduce a streamlined marketing approval pathway for biologicals that are for export only, to support innovation investment in biologicals in Australia and to reduce the regulatory burden for such products. As we know—for the benefit of the chamber and those listening on at home—biologics are a substance produced by a living organism that is generally used in the prevention or treatment of disease, especially in malignancy and also in immune-mediated diseases. Some of those that come to mind are rheumatoid arthritis, which I've personally seen quite severely debilitate patients. Patients have quite a severe physical deficit from that disease. It also causes quite systemic problems with the patient such as Crohn's disease, a form of inflammatory bowel disease which can lead to an ulceration and a degrading of the bowel, with multiple surgeries required. I can't understate the importance of biologics in the therapeutic setting and in the clinical setting.</para>
<para>It's also going to remove the merits review rights for decisions by the secretary to require the provision of information or documents to prevent merits review pathways from being used to delay the provision of information or documents and compromise efforts to assess the safety of therapeutic goods and possible contraventions of the act. Again, to focus on ultimately patient information-gathering power for the safety, it will introduce a general information-gathering power for the secretary to require the provision of informational documents relevant to a contravention or possible contravention of the act from any person, including third parties, to support monitoring and compliance activities and product safety.</para>
<para>Moreover, it also allows seized goods to be retained for the 120-day period instead of the current 90-day time frame. This is going to allow sufficient time for seized goods to be assessed by the TGA and, potentially, form evidence supporting enforcement action.</para>
<para>Furthermore, the bill will reduce the regulatory burden for therapeutic goods' advertisers by providing that the enforcement provisions relating to advertising do not apply to advertisements directed exclusively to people purchasing therapeutic goods on behalf of governments or registered charities, or to purchasing officers or practice managers in a healthcare practice within that setting. To continue along the same vein, with advertising, the bill contains measures to allow the secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to withdraw approval of a restricted representation in therapeutic goods advertising if new information about the efficacy of those goods or that drug becomes available, to reflect that it may no longer be appropriate for the restricted representation to be used in such advertising.</para>
<para>I should also just mention that this bill will also contain measures to clarify that the natural justice hearing rule is not required to be observed in relation to the release of the therapeutic goods information, to ensure that critical information about the safety of goods is able to be released without any delay or obstruction. Also of note is that it will seek to clarify that sponsors of reportable medicines—principally, prescription medications—that are in short supply must provide updated information about the shortage and its resolution to the secretary.</para>
<para>I'll just go over the key elements of this bill once again, and I'm going to go through them again because they are vital to what we're talking about today. One element is to improve the post-market monitoring of adverse events relating to medical devices. I've gone through why it's so important to collect that data and information on adverse events. Not only does that therapeutic alliance strengthen patient safety, but it also provides clinicians—whether they be in the emergency department, on the ward or in a clinical setting within a hospital—with the most up-to-date information regarding those medical devices.</para>
<para>There's also reducing the regulatory burden for sponsors of export-only biologicals. We've gone through why biologicals are such an important pharmaceutical medication in our health service. Examples are of patients suffering from diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and those seronegative spondyloarthropathies, and also from diseases like Crohn's that significantly affect the bowel and can lead to long-term morbidity and, ultimately, mortality in some patients. That's where biologicals really come in handy and provide a good therapeutic benefit.</para>
<para>It'll also strengthen compliance and enforcement activities, which we've gone through, and update the regulation of advertising of therapeutic goods. It will also strengthen options for dealing with medication shortages, which is absolutely vital in our health system. It's a problem, not just in my electorate but right across the country. The assistant minister, who is here today, and the Minister for Health and many in our caucus recognise that that is an issue, and that's what this bill goes to. This is one of the ways that the Albanese government is making sure that medications are more accessible to the general public—in particular, in that clinical environment.</para>
<para>I make reference to the recent legislative changes that we made, with regard to PBS prescription medications—lowering the price from $42.50 down to $30 per script, which is quite a significant saving and not just a cost-of-living measure, might I add. Just to comment on what the member was previously discussing: it's not just a cost-of-living measure that we're providing the community; it's also a life-saving measure, as people won't have to ration their medications by taking them every second, third or fourth day.</para>
<para>Take a disease like atrial fibrillation, where the heart doesn't beat correctly and a clot forms and that clot then shoots up to the brain. We treat that with an anticoagulant. I think of an example like Eliquis, or apixaban, that thins the blood. That's critical in preventing stroke from that heart condition. That's one of the drugs that will be impacted by our changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.</para>
<para>There are also changes to asthma medications, which are vital. We want to make sure that we're preventing exacerbation or worsening of asthma. That's preventing ED admissions; that's preventing admissions to the intensive care unit of people requiring significant respiratory support.</para>
<para>Finally, as to some of the diabetic medications, we're also making sure patients can access them faster. When we look at a patient with type 2 diabetes, if that patient is not taking that medication regularly and they have sustained, unregulated high glucose levels or high blood sugar levels, then we see those micro- and macro-vascular complications of diabetes. What I mean by that is the retina being damaged and causing blindness. I mean that the kidneys become degraded. The functional unit of the kidney becomes degraded so much that patients are going to require dialysis long term, whether that's peritoneal, through the tummy, or haemodialysis, through the arm and through the veins in order to clean the blood—do the job that the kidneys would normally do. I think of nerve damage in the extremities, in the arms and the legs, and also damage to the blood vessels in those extremities. And what does that do? It means that, if someone were to suffer a burn or an abrasion on the foot, and they don't realise and they haven't felt it and it doesn't heal, that can become an infected wound that will ultimately go to gangrene and then probably require amputation of the limb. So access to medications is vital. They're a vital part of the therapeutic and clinical context.</para>
<para>In this bill, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme changes are part of the Albanese Labor government's commitment to not only strengthen Medicare but strengthen patient safety, strengthen the therapeutic alliance, and make sure that government and health bureaucracy have options to make the changes that we need to undertake to benefit the patient, because they need to be at the centre of this. The patient needs to be at the centre of everything that we do in this place, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. They need to be at the centre.</para>
<para>In closing, I'll say that all the changes in this bill are vital in supporting improvements to the safety of the patient; reduce ongoing regulatory burdens; support timely access to therapeutic goods; and enhance compliance and enforcement activities. It's good for patient safety, and it's good for the therapeutic alliance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Cooper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Robertson and the member for Macarthur for their contributions to this debate. It's really wonderful to have such knowledgeable, hands-on doctors in this government who understand—along with you, Madam Deputy Speaker Ananda-Rajah—the arguments as to why this bill is very important. There were real, firsthand examples of how it's going to make a difference to people's lives. Of course, I'd like to acknowledge the member for Lindsay as well, who is clearly across the subject and also knew just how this measure is going to improve health care in Australia for Australians. I'd also like to acknowledge the member for Monash, who, when I introduced this bill, made a very passionate plea for its support with respect to members of his constituents who had been impacted by the vaginal mesh disaster. So thank you to all of those members for their support.</para>
<para>The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 to implement a number of measures which support the delivery of the highest quality health care for the Australian public by ensuring continued access to critical prescription medicines and supporting the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening therapeutic goods post-market monitoring and compliance. In particular, the bill supports the implementation of a scheme for the mandatory reporting by hospitals of adverse events associated with medical devices. This measure would support the improved monitoring of safety concerns associated with medical devices through access to information held by hospitals that identifies serious adverse events, and earlier detection of safety signals that may raise concerns about particular devices.</para>
<para>The bill encourages innovation and investment in biologicals in Australia by introducing a new, dedicated pathway for marketing approvals of biologicals that are for export only. The bill addresses and alleviates the effects of medicine shortages by amending the act to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to approve the importation or supply of an unapproved medicine that could act as a substitute for medicine that was previously approved in Australia. This measure is designed to ensure the continued supply of critical prescription medicines in Australia.</para>
<para>The bill supports the safe use of therapeutic goods by strengthening monitoring and compliance activities through a number of measures, including stronger information-gathering powers, extending the time frame for retaining seized goods and allowing the due date for an infringement notice to be extended once the due date has passed. The bill expands the persons to whom therapeutic goods advertising may be directed to include certain health professionals, persons purchasing therapeutic goods on behalf of registered charities or governments, and purchasing officers or practice managers of a healthcare practice. The bill also provides a mechanism for the approval of a restricted representation to be withdrawn where additional information about the efficacy of therapeutic goods becomes available, ensuring that advertising only contains correct and accurate information and reducing the risk of unsafe use by consumers. I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate on this bill.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6951" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>130</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr REPACHOLI</name>
    <name.id>298840</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022. This bill is vital to our country and highly important to my electorate in the Hunter. The agriculture sector is hugely significant to our nation, and it plays a massive role in the economy back home in the Hunter electorate. Agriculture is part of the backbone of our economy in the Hunter, and there are so many communities who are built on and rely on this industry. We are very lucky to have, in my unbiased view, the best dairy farms and the best cattle farms in Australia, and as a food enthusiast there is no electorate in the country that is better suited to me. I have been lucky enough to have done a fair amount of travelling around Australia and the world in my life. I've tasted dairy products, meat another agricultural products from around the world, and I can honestly say that the people of the Hunter have been gifted with some of the highest-quality and, most importantly, best-tasting products in the world right here in our backyard. I am extremely proud of what we produce in the Hunter, and it brings me even more pride to represent the hardworking farmers who give their lives to producing such world-class products. I want farmers in my electorate to know that this bill will help you get even more reward for your hard work.</para>
<para>Of course, I can't speak on agriculture without giving some special mention to the wine industry. Driving through the Hunter it's impossible to miss the beautiful green vines running through the landscape. These vines grow delicious grapes that eventually are turned into delicious wine. If you don't yet have your hands on some wine from the Hunter, I suggest you do, and, if you need some, just talk to me! I make this point because I will not sit back and allow countries like France and Italy to claim that they have the best wine in the world when the best wine I've ever tasted is in my own electorate of the Hunter. We need to get this wine out to as many countries as we can as quickly as possible. Currently, the top exporter of wine is France. Forgive me if I'm being overly optimistic here, but I reckon that, with the help of this bill, that title is coming to Australia, led, of course, by the mighty Hunter Valley, the home of the best wines and the best vines in the world.</para>
<para>This government wants to help an already booming industry to thrive even more. The agriculture sector has ambitions of becoming a $100 billion industry by 2030. With the support of this government, which is committed to this sector, I'm sure they will reach the goal—there's no doubt about that in my books. This bill is essential to ensuring the target is achievable. This bill will streamline regulation and cut red tape, both of which are critical for growing the Australian agriculture industry's exports and market access. We know that Australia has the best agricultural products in the world, and, as many citizens of Australia have made me the unofficial 'minister of burgers', I think I'm in a good position to speak to the quality of our beef industry, especially when it comes to a nice chunky patty on a bun with lettuce, cheese and tomato. It's delicious, and let me assure you I've had my fair share of those, as you can probably tell.</para>
<para>I think that all countries should have the pleasure of being able to enjoy our agricultural products. That's why it's so important to make it easier to export the products from our agricultural sector. I want as many people as possible around the world to feel the happiness that I do when I feast on a good Aussie steak, so I'm extremely happy that this bill will support the modern export system that will provide a streamline process for exporters and improve delivery of services. This is good for all people around the world. The more people enjoying what we have to offer here in Australia, the better. But, more importantly, this is good for our farmers. Here in Australia it will be a very welcome change for communities in the Hunter, who will be able to get their products to the export market quicker and easier than ever before. These changes just make sense.</para>
<para>The bulk of Australian-grown produce is exported, and farmers rely on an effective regulatory system to assist them in doing so. Export control legislation needs to remain current and fit for purpose. It needs to keep up with the developments in importing country requirements, changing regulatory objectives and industry practice advancements. This is exactly what this bill is going to achieve. This bill will make information-sharing provisions within the export control legislation more flexible. It will allow relevant information to be effectively shared with regulatory partners, exporters and other key stakeholders while maintaining the appropriate control on sharing certain kinds of information—a modern bill for a modern global market, making sure the agricultural sector does not fall behind.</para>
<para>But this bill isn't just about making sure our sector keeps up with its international competitors; it's actually about helping it surge ahead of the pack. It's about making sure that quality Australian produce gets on the plates of our friends and neighbours faster. We already have a strong reputation for high-quality agricultural produce, and this bill is only going to further enhance this reputation by supporting the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to streamline complex administrative and authorisation processes to access and utilise the export control information that it already holds. The improved information-sharing arrangements ensure greater flexibility in tailoring for export control purposes, and will make the export control legislative framework more effective, efficient and future focused.</para>
<para>Deputy Speaker Chesters, you may be asking yourself why we have to do this. The answer is simple: the current act is just not up to scratch; it's just not good enough in supporting an industry working towards becoming a $100 billion industry by 2030. There are inefficiencies in the current act that prevent the sensible sharing of information that may help strengthen Australia's trade position, and this government is here to fix that.</para>
<para>Streamlined information-sharing requirements can assist with rapid delivery of information that can be essential in trade situations. For example, when an importing country may hold a request for further information about a consignment of fresh produce at its port. Instead of being caught up in red tape and unnecessarily complex procedures, this information will be provided with more ease and our friends across the seas can get their hands on our produce even quicker than ever before. And what's better than fresh Aussie meat, fruit, veg and dairy?</para>
<para>Australia has a competitive edge in the international agriculture export market and we need this bill in order to maintain the edge by being able to effectively use and repurpose export control information, which will increase our ability to innovate and make gains from those innovations. The changes that will be implemented through this bill are nothing radical; in fact, the amendments in this bill are consistent with border information-sharing work already occurring across government. It's simply about making sure that our agriculture sector can be exported to more buyers around the world more quickly and more easily.</para>
<para>This is a government who cares about farmers and looks at practical ways to help grow industries, like helping them to make exporting more efficient. This is a government that understands how important the sector is to the country and it is committed to ensuring the high value that Australia places on its agriculture industry is longstanding. That's why we are implementing this bill, to help grow the agricultural industry, to help out our farmers and to help out the country as a whole. This is a simple and practical way to grow the agricultural industry to support it in achieving its goal of becoming a $100 billion industry by 2030. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to concentrate my remarks on a very famous person in Far North Queensland, John Gambino. The mango is one of the more popular fruits that we have available in supermarkets in Australia. I myself had an orchard of 400 mango trees. This is a backyard industry really; you have a few hundred trees as an adjunct to serious farming. That was how it was explained to me when I put in 400 trees. John Gambino and Robbie Vennard grow Bowen Special Mangoes. Please remember you buy Kensington Prides, which are Bowen Special Mangoes, the Australian mango. Don't buy the others—they're not as good. Having said that, there are various markets that do prefer other mangoes.</para>
<para>These two gentlemen, one in Bowen and one in Mareeba, 700 or 800 kilometres apart, put in 5,000 trees, so we went from a backyard industry to an industrial industry. They pioneered the modern mango industry. It was very seldom you saw mangoes on the shelf in a supermarket, but now they are always there, and that's a result of these two gentlemen. Both of them pioneered exports as well, but Robbie Vennard is out of the industry now, as I understand it.</para>
<para>I will come back to John Gambino. John stayed as an owner-operator when most others corporatised their operations. With corporate farming they go broke, and then they sell up at 50 cents in the dollar. The huge plantation in Townsville has gone broke three times. So, where the tree cost him $390 to plant and bring it through to production five years later, it would have cost them $450. But, because they went broke, it was sold up for 50 cents to the dollar. This has happened three times—their tree goes for $70. Whereas, the owner-operator, who hasn't played the corporate game, has to pay off a tree worth $369. Hence, the corporates win and the Australian people lose. Corporates will always end up being foreign owned.</para>
<para>To return to John Gambino, he pioneered the export market. He had contracts, which he had pioneered in Hong Kong. When Hong Kong became part of China, they still took his bananas—and I applaud Scott Morrison for speaking out against China on the issue of COVID—but, by the same token, the result was that China cut off $29,000 million worth of exports going into China. We'd never punished anyone ever, to our shame. If you want to play the game that the international market plays, you play it tough, but we are the little fairies in the garden when it comes to international trade. So John Gambino had his mango exports to China cut off, and China said: 'Oh, no, you have diseases. You don't fumigate, so we're not taking any.' It was obviously influenced by COVID as well. When I last visited John, his son Sam said he was down the paddock. I asked what he was doing down the paddock and he said, 'He's picking mangoes.' He's 83 years of age and he's down there with workers, some of them from overseas, picking mangoes! They're just fighting the banks, as all farmers do—I emphasise that.    He's no different to any other farmer in Australia, but at 83 he still has to go down there with the workers. When I went down, there was about 500 metres of mangoes piled this high, and I said, 'What's that?' He said: 'They were the mangos that were going to Hong Kong, and I've just got to get rid of them. That's my crop of E2s for the year, gone.'</para>
<para>When I was the Minister for Northern Development and Aboriginal and Islander Affairs a hundred years ago, we realised that we had to put a fumigation plant in Cairns, which is one of the centres of fruit and vegetable growing in Australia. About six or seven per cent of Australia's fruit and vegetables come out of that area; 95 to 97 per cent of Australia's bananas come out of that area, and that's the most-sold generic item in the supermarkets, to quote one example. There's also a massive production of avocados out of that area, and, of course, it's the mango capital of Australia.</para>
<para>Returning to Gambino, it's important to say that this is a very important man. He calls meetings at Mareeba and gets 600 and 700 people turning up to them. I don't know anyone in Australia these days who can call a meeting and get 600 or 700 people to turn up. He pioneers the mango industry for Australia, and if there is a more beautiful fruit on earth I haven't tasted it. So, we needed a fumigation plant, but the government went down before we got it in. We realised that we had to build it, but in the last two months we weren't able to do it. Thirty years later, we still haven't got a fumigation plant. It is quite justified for a country to say, 'If you want to send bananas, mangos or whatever to us, then we don't want any of your diseases; we want it fumigated before it leaves Australia.' Australia has no restrictions at all. Anyone can send anything to Australia. We have no restrictions at all.</para>
<para>As a net result of these free market policies—'We're not going to put a fumigation plant in; if people want a fumigation plant, they can put it in'—we lost the tobacco industry and the 2½ thousand to 3,000 jobs in Myrtleford, Victoria. We lost the peanut industry. We lost the flower industry—we had 12 very big flower exporters, and I'm not going to go into the details of how the government's free market policy has destroyed them. Both the pig industry and the grape industry went down because of free market policies. Believe it or not, it was the party that was formed by farmers that did all this! The once-great Country Party has become a fawning sycophantic addendum to the Liberal Party, but I don't think even the Liberal Party would have done this. The Labor Party didn't—they did it to wool, yes, but that was the only thing they deregulated. Some vestiges of Labor still understand arbitration, but a farmer needs arbitration just as much.</para>
<para>We're talking about exports. Don't talk about it and say, 'I'm for it.' Build a fumigation plant in Cairns. It is desperately needed. Build a fumigation plant now if you're fair dinkum about exporting fruit and vegetables from this country. Maybe seven per cent of Australia's entire fruit and vegetable production comes from the Tully-Mareeba-Atherton axis, also Lakeland now—a quadrangle, if you like. That percentage will become greater and greater, because we have the dry season and we have ample water. Three-quarters of Australia's water is in Far North Queensland. So we have the water and we have the dry, because you don't want wet conditions for a lot of these crops.</para>
<para>In summary, I return to John Gambino. He calls a meeting, and they have, under Wayne Swan, a national summit on rural debt, which was at horrific levels and is higher now than then. But Wayne Swan did something about it. He called them all in, and the Mareeba Rural Action Council, of which Gambino was chairman, proposed that if their farmers' income did not meet welfare levels then the government would top it up with a family farm assistance grant. Now one in five farmers have got the family farm assistance grant. Their income has not met a welfare payment. That's how bad we are in farming in Australia.</para>
<para>Our cattle numbers are down 32 per cent, our sheep herd is down 72 per cent, our dairy herd is down 13 per cent and our sugar cane is down 15 per cent. I don't know about grain; we don't have grain in northern Australia. But they're the big boys, and that's only because of the intervention of the Prime Minister, overturning the National Party decision to allow bananas in from overseas, where people work for $5 a day. We've got to pay $20 an hour, and so we should. If you stand in the hot sun humping bunches of bananas which weigh almost as much as some of the young kids working in the banana fields, you deserve $20 an hour. But then you ask us to compete against people who are paid $5 an hour. Are you the promoters of slave-labour wage levels in these other countries? If you allow products produced by slave labour into this country, you are promoting and continuing slave-labour wages in Texas in the United States, with the wetback labour; in Africa, where people work for nothing; in China, where people are made to work for nothing; and in India, where people, because of poverty, work for nothing—all these countries.</para>
<para>Now, we don't want our workers working for nothing. The greatest pride that the Australian people have is that we have arbitration. But the arbitration was removed from the farmers. You wrecked and destroyed that. One part of my electorate, the dairy part of my electorate, had the highest suicide rates in Australia, which was as predictable as the sun rising. You deregulated the dairy industry and you knew exactly what was going to happen, and yet you proceeded to do it.</para>
<para>We had, I think, 2,000 dairy farmers in Queensland. We have now got about 300 to 400. In the Kennedy electorate, probably the biggest dairy-farming area in Australia, we had 260 very big farms. I said at a meeting the other day that we had 58, and I was corrected by the state member, who is a member of our party. He said, 'No, it's 48.' There was a lady there who said, 'No, you're wrong; it's 38.' So we had 250, and now we've got 38, and a lot of them exited in the most terrible way possible.</para>
<para>So, if you're fair dinkum or you're just making a noise—and that's all I ever hear in this place—I don't see any reality out there in the world. I don't see any factories being built. I don't see any new farms being opened. I don't see any dams being built. I don't see any mass high-rise condominiums for tourists being built in Queensland. Of course, we have the Gold Coast, but for the first time ever I can't see a single high-rise being built on the Gold Coast. That most certainly is the situation in the greater Cairns-Mackay-Whitsundays area. Nothing is happening out there.</para>
<para>I conclude by saying that John Gambino needs a fumigation plant. He can't possibly build one for himself. It's got to be built for the whole industry. It's got to be based in Cairns, where we take the fruit and vegetables out of the Cairns area. Actually, I'll rephrase that: it's got to be based in the Atherton Tablelands, where we have a direct route now—thanks to Anthony Albanese, no less. We've cut 2,000 kilometres off the round trip for our fruits and vegetables from Far North Queensland—tropical fruit and vegetables—to go to the markets in Victoria, and of course their temperate fruit and vegetables have had 2,000 kilometres cut off the trip to the million people in the North Queensland market. So we are poised to be able to do that, but we need the fumigation plant.</para>
<para>I will take advantage of the opportunity today to pay a very great tribute to a very great hero: John Gambino, who got welfare payments for Australian farmers for the first time in Australian history, with the rural action council. I have awarded a Good Australian Award to every member of that council, because they are good Australians.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the second reading of the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022. I start by making the point that I represent the electorate of Sturt, which is in the city of Adelaide. If you look at a map of my electorate, you wouldn't think that it was resplendent with agricultural businesses, but in fact, in the proud history of South Australia from European settlement, Adelaide has always been a city that has serviced the agricultural industries that surround it. That's always been the economic genesis of Adelaide as a metropolitan area, until the Playford era of the 1930s and beyond, when we happily diversified into industries, particularly the car industry and other manufacturing sectors. But it is still the case that the primary production industries of agriculture and mining are the two very significant elements of South Australia's economy, and metropolitan Adelaide therefore still is extremely reliant on jobs that come from the agricultural sector and, of course, exports more broadly.</para>
<para>I have some very significant exporting agricultural firms that are headquartered in my electorate of Sturt. Thomas Foods are a good example. They're rebuilding, as we speak, their significant abattoir that was destroyed by fire back in 2017, from memory. That is, of course, in the electorate of Barker, but their corporate functions are in my electorate of Sturt. My metropolitan electorate is also very proudly the home of the Magill estate, Penfolds' original vineyard and winery. Grange Cottage is on that site and, of course, lends its name to the very famous wine now called Grange—formerly Grange Hermitage—which is, I think, fairly uncontroversially considered the greatest wine produced at least in Australia—but, we might even claim, further afield still.</para>
<para>So export, particularly agricultural export, is very important to my electorate. I also spent almost 10 years in the wool industry working for a business called Michell, a very significant South Australian early-stage fibre-processing business for Australian wool. It was established in 1870 and is still owned by the Michell family—the sixth generation of the family involved in the business and the fifth generation owning and running the business. In my time there, the division that I ran was 100 per cent involved in export. Everything that we produced went overseas in some way, shape or form through the supply chain, so I had a lot of experience with the interesting challenges and idiosyncrasies of dealing with exporting to many, many different countries and the way in which rules and regulations can be complicated and can change depending on who you're dealing with and when.</para>
<para>This bill, as indicated in the second reading speech from the minister and also the contribution from our shadow minister, is being supported, I think, unanimously. I wasn't certain whether the member for Kennedy was speaking for or against the bill, but I feel like he's not going to divide on it, so I'm certain it's going to pass the Chamber and the parliament, and I look forward to that. From my electorate's point of view and from my experience in the wool industry, I'm very keen to see us do everything we can to support our export industries, particularly in the agricultural sector, and to have better flow of information between government departments where that can be improved compared to some of the restrictions that are in place right now. It's vitally important for our country. We've obviously had the ABS statistics—just in the last couple of days, I think—confirming another record monthly trade surplus: over $12 billion. I think last year in one of the months we hit $16 billion, which is absolutely phenomenal.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I accept the point that iron ore, coal and natural gas are doing the lion's share of making sure that we stay in surplus, and that's an important thing for people to remember about our economy, too.</para>
<para>When I studied international trade more than a decade ago, one of the more famous examples of the issue around export data—commercial-in-confidence versus giving free giving access to important trade statistics—was the company Phillips, a very famous Dutch electronics company. It was the case that if the Dutch government released certain data on electronics export values et cetera for the whole economy, they would be revealing information about Philips because they were the only electronics manufacturing company operating in that country. That meant there were always important provisions to make sure that commercial-in-confidence information was not published invariably or accidentally or because it was necessary under the legislation. I understand the need to keep sensitive information that companies need to provide to government as commercial-in-confidence where it is necessary for the business.</para>
<para>I also understand completely the need for this change and how it would benefit the government in supporting industry to grow our exports and to make it a lot easier for government to share information between departments. I certainly understand that different organs of our government are all working together to support growing our exports. We know how important information is for DFAT, who obviously have responsibility for undertaking trade negotiations by looking for opportunities to negotiate FTAs and make sure Australian businesses are going to benefit to the maximum from the sorts of negotiations that we will set as priorities in those bilateral and multilateral fora. Of course, DFAT need to be in possession of the most up-to-date and comprehensive data in those areas, and surely we want them to be so that they can make sure that what they're doing in these discussions will maximise the benefits for Australian industries. We wouldn't want them not to be in the possession of certain information that another department could have provided to them about Australian exports in sectors, in product lines et cetera.</para>
<para>We want all levels of government to have all the information they need to deliver in the best interests of Australian exporters and in times when Australia is in dispute with the WTO. We want to make sure that government agencies have all the information that they need, if we are engaged in disputes to protect the interests of Australian exporters. At WTO level we want to make sure that they have all the facts that they need to make the strongest argument in support of Australia's interests. Obviously, we understand government supporting individual exporters to properly understand some of the issues around documentation et cetera. Going back to the example of the wool industry, I remember we often had interesting requirements suddenly foisted upon us, particularly from the European Union if I'm honest. There would suddenly be the miraculous requirement for a health certificate for a dramatically transformed product like spun worsted wool and yarn for some reason like because it was a sample quantity instead of a commercial transaction. It would then be necessary to spend a couple of thousand euro to have a vet come to look at a spindle of yarn. That's fine, and we always followed the rules. We're always proud of the strong biosecurity framework that we've got, and it's also important for our businesses and our exporters to properly know and understand, perhaps with support from our government, what the various elements are when it comes to engaging in new export opportunities et cetera.</para>
<para>Clearly, we can do better to make sure that all levels of government are in receipt of the best information possible from other agencies, who at the moment have significant challenges to provide the information that they've got that would freely advance the best interests of our businesses and our economy, and we should support that. For those very simple reasons I commend the bill to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to speak on this today. The coalition, as has been said here today, supports the passage of the Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022. It sounds very dry. However, the impacts of this are not, and we've heard the member before me speak very well about this.</para>
<para>This bill provides that regulatory framework, especially for those agricultural commodities—which is something that, as a dairy farmer from the South West of Western Australia, I'm particularly focused on in this place, constantly. Given that around 70 per cent of our agricultural produce is exported, our farmers do an amazing job in this country. We feed 25 million people with some of the best-quality food in the world, and I'm extraordinarily proud of them. They also produce some fabulous fibre in various ways. That is used around world to produce some amazing-quality products. But we do need to make sure that they're supported, that the process and industries are supported, that there's a streamlined, fit for purpose process and that they're able to operate as efficiently as possible.</para>
<para>The bill that we have in front of us allows the better information management that we've seen discussed here today. It will cut administrative red tape—the bane of business, no matter whether you're a new exporter or an existing exporter—and even across the various sectors and government industries and agencies, just clarifying and streamlining it and making it efficient and effective. That collective information sharing will be done in the right way, securely. That is very important to us all in how this will be managed. The export sector relies on this, and I think we always need to be looking at this to do it better and more efficiently.</para>
<para>I focus constantly on data confidentiality. No matter at what level—business, industry, government or other agencies that are involved—one of the greatest challenges we all collectively face is the protection of confidentiality of information and, for us as farmers and producers and the exporters, a lot of the IP that sits within our businesses that go with that. Across the board there is a genuine need to maintain confidentiality, and in this we will come under ever-increasing pressure and stress rom both commercial activities and malicious actors. It's something that I am very concerned about.</para>
<para>Those safeguards for that information, across this streamlining, need to be very robust and constantly reviewed, because we know that there's a lot of money to be made and that there's been a significant bleed of intellectual property across many businesses and entities that sometimes don't even know it yet, because of the malicious attacks on their information and their sites and other areas. We need to provide this to the countries that we're dealing with and for DFAT to assist with trade negotiations and the potential for further trade barriers—the non-tariff barriers that we see regularly and have had a lot of experience with in the EU. They're very cleverly disguised and will continue to be. We're seeing the latest iteration of some of that now.</para>
<para>This bill needs to keep Australia at the cutting edge globally because we're often the target, because we are such efficient producers and because the rest of the world—our competitors in markets—is looking for very different ways to actually increase the cost to our producers. We often operate in a very challenging environment, on one of the driest continents, but we produce some of the most amazing products. We have less water, less fertiliser and less land, and we still do it. We're expected to do it and we do it very well. But, when we look at some of those that we're hearing with some of our trade deals, who are concerned about Australia's competitiveness, we are constantly having to be aware of and alert to the intent to undermine Australia's export capability and the fact that we can deliver globally and produce to the highest quality in the world. That creates a challenge in some other parts of the world and with our competitors in this space.</para>
<para>We have to be on the front line of everything we do, and our Australian farmers have to be efficient, otherwise they're out of business—and that includes in the export space—because of the high cost of doing business in Australia. Even in infrastructure or whatever you want to do, we are up against layers and layers of red tape and green tape. We are always behind the eight ball and, inevitably, if you're a price taker in a commodity space, it comes back to you managing your own business even better and often absorbing the extra layers of cost that go with applying the rules and regulations at local, state and federal levels. It's something that I'm very, very conscious of.</para>
<para>Equally, our agricultural producers have the capacity to help feed the rest of the world when we know there are global shortages of food, especially with the actual content of the food itself. Often there are a lot of interesting parts to food production and if there's actual nutritional benefit from the food that is being produced. I have confidence that, in Australia, that is what we do, so it is really important that we continue to be able to export high-quality food, fibre and products across the board.</para>
<para>We've heard so many instances in this space where there have been challenges, and I hear it from my local exporters as well. The commitment the coalition made to the Regional Accelerator Program and to the Export Market Development Grants Scheme in its last budget would have helped those small to medium businesses in my patch, and in every other part of Australia, to help get into the export market and promote their goods into new markets, which is a real problem. It was a really good program.</para>
<para>When I look at what we achieved in government, I'm proud of us and the free trade agreements that gave our people market access to: Malaysia, Korea, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Peru, Indonesia, the comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership, the PACER Plus and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. What a great record, and what great opportunities these have given those who actually do the work and generate the income and the opportunity out wherever they are.</para>
<para>One-fifth of the Australian population produces roughly two-thirds of Australia's national export earnings. I look at Western Australia and, at the top of the list, you get iron ore and gold and alumina, a lot of which comes out of our part of the world, base metals and wheat. The port of Bunbury in my own electorate had 15-plus million tonnes of export products pass through it in 2022. The silicon that is being used in solar panels is actually manufactured in my part of the world. There's the fabulous beef from Harvey Beef and V&V Walsh, who export chilled and frozen beef and lamb to China. We have milk and dairy and juices with Harvey Fresh—what a great company!</para>
<para>Then there's lithium. We have the best hard-rock spodumene at Greenbushes, which is just inside the member for O'Connor's electorate. It is being manufactured by Albemarle in my part of the world. They will have five trains of production capable very soon, in the next couple of years, and the demand is so great that it's already forward sold. We also have Talison in that production.</para>
<para>We have Alcoa and South32 exporting through the port. There's 11-plus million tonnes of alumina going out through the port of Bunbury—just incredible! And it's done very efficiently, very effectively, and we need to make sure they can continue to do this no matter what the market is. There are mineral sands with Iluka.</para>
<para>There is the fabulous Margaret River and the region's wine. This is interesting. Margaret River is a standout in the export market. Margaret River is contributing 59 per cent of WA's bottled wine export value while actually only being two per cent of the national crush. That tells you it's a recognised international brand. When I'm out and about representing my electorate, people sometimes ask me where I'm from. Because I'm rural and regional, sometimes there is a frown when I talk and so I start at the top of my electorate and work to the bottom. Yarloop; Harvey, where I farm; Bunbury—I start to get a few smiles; Busselton. When I get to Margaret River—bang! That is the international reputation that has been created by a quality product and people marketing a quality Australian and Western Australian product internationally. One of the great challenges, I think, besides biosecurity and the other challenges we face around competition and non-tariff barriers, is that of maintaining our reputation globally as that producer of fine quality. We're known for clean, green production. That is a reputation we can never, ever afford to give up, so it's a real challenge for us with what we do.</para>
<para>Something I'm particularly proud of is that we also have the only ocean grown baby abalone, off the tiny town of Augusta, right at the southern end of my electorate. They're looking at growing this business. This is just a fabulous product. We also see a lot of woodchips going through the port, and we see the grain, as I have mentioned.</para>
<para>We have highly productive farmers using a wonderful South West irrigation system. This system is a gravity fed system that supplies really good quality water to the majority of the system. However, there is one area, the Wellington Dam catchment area, that needs desalination to provide even better quality to the farmers that are on that southern end of that South West irrigation system. I want to see that continue to be supported through the National Water Grid approach, and I want to have that pumped and piped. There are a lot of savings that have been made through piping the northern section. There have been significant reductions in channel losses and efficiencies on farm. It underpins the agricultural sector in the South West and the production of that food.</para>
<para>We've got some really wonderful examples. Take carrots and onions. We've got a range of people sitting in this room. My shire, Harvey shire, is where 30 per cent of Western Australia's carrots are grown. A vast amount of these are exported to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Singapore, and that generates about $90 million a year. About 90 per cent of WA's onions are grown in Harvey shire, and 20 per cent are exported. And it's about the irrigation water and the access to quality water, always. The slogan for South West irrigation is, 'Where water flows, food grows.' There's nothing more critical than that. There is much more that needs to underpin that that we have supported. That is the basic infrastructure to support the logistics, as well.</para>
<para>There's just one other I wanted to mention in the two minutes or so I've got left. A local earth-moving logistics company, Piacentini & Son, designed and manufactured, in my patch, what's called the Panther. This is like the old-fashioned low-loader. They call it a float; I call it a low-loader. It will go on to any mine site. It's got significant hydraulics—it will lift up to 360 tonnes—on what we would call a low-loader. It's very well balanced. The machine that you would drive or lift on, up to 360 tonnes, has a 2,300-horsepower LeTourneau in the front of it. It is just a remarkable piece of gear, able to be manufactured almost in any size and designed and manufactured in my part of the world using local tradespeople and local apprentices that we helped support in government. What a great result. This is being exported globally out of the port of Bunbury. I'm just so proud of what they have done. This is a cutting-edge piece of equipment and is recognised by those operating globally as such a great piece of gear.</para>
<para>We've got some wonderful people who are innovating all of the time in this space, and we need to support them through this type of legislation, which streamlines the process at each end but protects the confidentiality of that information. I'm pleased to support this bill, but I am completely focused, as well, on supporting our exporters, small, medium or large. There are a lot of small businesses quietly exporting, just getting on with their jobs, and looking to have an opportunity to do that in a streamlined way that doesn't add significant cost to their businesses and to the costs of exporting. Given that we sit in a pretty unique part of the world with some great challenges, a more streamlined approach to this—while protecting their interests and the confidentiality of their information—is really critical to them. I look forward to us protecting that and fostering that and even focusing further on that in the future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to acknowledge the members for Kennedy, Sturt, Forrest and Hunter for their contributions on this legislation. You can see how passionate members of this place are, and I want to acknowledge the member for Forrest's deep interest in agriculture. I've had many a conversation with her previously about it.</para>
<para>The Export Control Amendment (Streamlining Administrative Processes) Bill 2022 will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the export control legislation by streamlining the administrative processes for information sharing and making other amendments to improve administration of the act. It will reduce administrative burden for industry, the department and other stakeholders and ensure our export legislation is fit for purpose and responsive to stakeholder needs. It will allow for more information to be shared more expediently with importing countries and other government departments in appropriate circumstances. This in turn will enhance our ability to use export and trade intelligence to build and sustain our international market presence.</para>
<para>This bill supports appropriate sharing of relevant information whilst ensuring information that could cause harm is protected. This is consistent with the broader information-sharing reform work being considered across different portfolios. It is also consistent with key agricultural policy initiatives such as the Busting Congestion for Agricultural Exporters initiative, to reduce red tape and streamline processes for Australian exporters. This bill will also make minor but important amendments to simplify processes and improve effective administration of the act. These changes contribute to a modern, future-looking export regulatory system that can support the growth of Australian agricultural exports in existing and new markets. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>138</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Molan, Senator Andrew James (Jim), AO, DSC</title>
          <page.no>138</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McBAIN</name>
    <name.id>281988</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to offer my sincere condolences to the family of Senator Jim Molan AO DSC, retired major general, along with many other people in this House today and many who have expressed their sincere condolences since his passing in January. While Jim's politics and mine didn't align all the time, we had a shared love of southern New South Wales and we had a deep desire to represent the views of those communities within southern New South Wales, and that was something that we always had in common.</para>
<para>He lived a life of service during a 40-year military career that included deployments to Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, Malaysia, Germany, the United States and Iraq. Senator Molan received many awards and much recognition for his distinguished service to the Australian Army. Senator Molan was always forthright when talking about the capacity of our Australian defence forces, and I acknowledge his many books and articles in the years following his retirement from the armed services. But when he resigned from the Defence Force he continued to serve Australians by becoming not only a New South Wales senator but a volunteer firefighter.</para>
<para>Jim and I first met following the 2018 Tathra fires in my part of the world when I was the Mayor of the Bega Valley Shire Council. He was always open to receiving a phone call, a text message, always up for a chat. On many occasions, I utilised his open-door policy to make sure that he knew about some of the big issues impacting our community following on from that first big natural disaster after he became a New South Wales senator. On every occasion, Jim would speak to our community, relay their messages, their concerns, their queries, back to the government of the day, and always made sure that he followed up.</para>
<para>There were a couple of announcements that Jim came down to make post the 2018 Tathra bushfires in my part of the world. One was a mental health announcement. I remember Jim and I standing in the Bega Valley Commemorative Civic Centre having a discussion about how the press conference would unravel. It was an interesting experience standing with Jim. I got to stand next to him on a number of occasions when I was the local mayor and he was our duty senator. One such occasion was when Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Michael McCormack, came down to do an airport announcement in Merimbula, and Jim came along. What we thought would be quite a simple announcement, well received by people, ended up turning into a major protest, where we had protesters coming at us from all angles, trying to rush the cameras. Given that the member for Riverina was the acting Prime Minister at the time, it got quite interesting because there were a number of AFP officers around on detail. Jim took that all in his stride because I think he had seen all of that many, many times before. But as the local mayor, I was quite taken aback. Afterwards Jim said, 'Oh, it's just another day.'</para>
<para>Jim was always up for a laugh. Even when I became the Labor candidate in the Eden-Monaro July 2020 by-election—and in our part of the world it's pretty cold around then—Jim and his beautiful wife, Anne, went to one of the local takeaway shops and got about 40 potato cakes—yes, they are potato cakes not potato scallops—and made sure everyone on prepoll got a bit of warmth. They are the type of people who want to give a bit of warmth to people.</para>
<para>Most importantly, we know that Jim was a loving husband, a proud father and an even prouder grandfather. The love that he had for his family was something that always shone through. I want to express my sincere condolences again to Anne, to their four children—Sarah, Erin, Felicity, Michael—and their five grandchildren. I know he'll be sorely missed, has a big place in your heart and will forever be in your memories. On behalf of my constituents in Eden-Monaro and southern New South Wales, thank you for your service to us too, Jim.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PEARCE</name>
    <name.id>282306</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to acknowledge and thank the previous speaker, the member for Eden-Monaro, for her heartfelt contribution to this condolence motion. Thank you, and I sincerely mean that. On behalf of the state of Tasmania and the electorate of Braddon, I rise today on this very significant condolence motion. It's moved us all deeply. As we reflect on previous speakers and previous sessions in this condolence motion on the passing of a great Australian, the list of accolades, the list of service contributions that that person, Jim Molan—Major General Molan—has made to this country is incredible. In fact, I have a speech that contains some such accolades but I'm going to put that aside today. I want to speak directly about what Jim meant to me and to the rest of the soldiers who served under him, what he did for the Australian Army, and the type of man that he was as a military man and as a colleague in this place.</para>
<para>Jim was commissioned in the Australian Army about the same time—in fact, the year after—I was born. By the time I enlisted as a young 18-year-old and went to Enoggera Barracks, he was the commanding officer of the 6th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. Another good mate of mine, a bloke called Graham Dwyer, was the regimental sergeant major. Together, as a command team, Jim Molan and 'Dolly' Dwyer wrote the doctrine on what it means to be a leader, what it means to lead an operational unit into battle, and how to prepare that operational force and maintain morale. And there was none better. There was none more grounded there was none more sincere and there was none more mission focused than Jim Molan. I remember as a young digger being a dixie basher—that is, the colloquial term we had for doing the washing up out the back. Jim was the type of bloke where, at a formal dinner, he would be out the back of the mess asking how we got on with the formal dinner. He didn't have to do that; most of those officers probably wouldn't. But he took the time and considered there were young diggers out back working for those people who were sitting down at the silver service, and that is the type of bloke Jim Molan was. I have never forgotten that and I will never will.</para>
<para>It was in those days that that tone was set in my development. Those little things that I talk about have a big impact on soldiers, and Jim knew that. Jim understood that intimately. Jim was probably the most selfless commander that I have ever met. In the military, we are required, by service convention, by military law, to take a pace back and salute our officers, and most of the time we do that. We do that because we have to. But in Jim's case, it wouldn't matter what he had on his shoulders; he was a leader in every true sense of the word. You would follow him to the end of the earth and you would give your life in an instant, not because of the rank that he wore, not because of the position that he bore, but because of the man he was and the respect he gave you as a unit. Now that to me embodies the life of Jim Molan.</para>
<para>Jim continued to serve for more than 40 years. As I developed into a warrant officer and I had my own command, I met up again with Jim in East Timor, where he was in a pivotal role in the negotiations between the Indonesian army and the East Timorese government. Again, I got to serve with one of the role models I had met so many years before. I used to go to him for advice. When it all got too much, Jim was the sort of bloke you could go to and he would invariably make you a cup of tea. You would lay it all out and you would be flustered and emotional, and Jim, in his calm way, in his polite and mannered way, in his sensible way, could see the forest completely from the view that he had. Maybe it was that passion he had for flying helicopters—who knows?—but he had an aerial view of your problem. Instead of delivering the answer down your throat, he would fish around in your soul so that you could produce your own answer. That is the sign of a true leader, somebody who was selfless enough to let you find your own way forward. Again, I appreciate that side of Jim Molan, as do many colleagues from the Army.</para>
<para>I went to the funeral at the Royal Military College Duntroon at the soldiers chapel. To me, that was a sad day. It was a military funeral in every true sense of the word. From my perspective as a long-time soldier, it had a particular significance. I met up with a number of old colleagues and we talked about similar stories that I have talked about this morning. I was okay. The family walked in, I looked them in the eye and saw their grief and that was difficult. I listened to the anecdotes and the eulogies and the magnificent stories that were told of Jim Molan. At the end, the formal part of the ceremony took place. Those six bearers, those six sergeant majors who were selected specifically to carry Jim Molan from the church, stood up—the looks on their faces. They looked at each other. They stood, three each side of the coffin draped in the Australian National Flag and they folded it. It was that point that rested on my shoulders, that cut my heart. I looked at that flag and—I want the whole family at home to know this story, this fact, about how I felt—when they folded that flag those bearers folded the first fold underneath and the flag was kept uppermost, meaning that the greater union of the Australian National Flag was maintained at all times. The integrity of the flag, the integrity that represented the country, that represented the power and defence of this country, remained uppermost at all times. It was folded neatly, and then it was passed through each of those sergeant majors, each of those senior soldiers, to the senior bearer, the RSM ceremonial to the Chief of the Army, and it was then presented to Anne Molan—the look on her face as she took that—that's something that she will always have.</para>
<para>I want that whole family, that Molan family, to know that for me that flag that you received that day is all the more stronger because of Jim Molan. And the stars that are on that flag shine brighter because of Jim Molan. And that flag is what drove him every day of his life. It was the preservation and the strength of the flag. So, to Anne, to Sarah, to Erin, to Felicity and Michael and those beautiful grandkids, I hope one day you tell those kids this story, and I hope you get that flag out. I want to tell them, from me, that that flag means more to me now because of Jim Molan than ever before and you should be very proud because he is one of the most unique leaders that this country has ever seen or ever will, maybe. Leaders like Jim don't come along every day; they are gifted to us.</para>
<para>I often think of the times leading up to Jim's passing. People didn't realise how sick he was. That was done on purpose. That was him shielding people, protecting people, defending people from his pain. It's just a measure of the bloke, I think. So, from me, I'm going to miss him. Those diggers that served underneath him will miss him and will remember him. He stays in us. I took more from Jim Molan than he ever took from me, and I consider it a gift that I have had the pleasure of that service with him, that friendship with him, and he will remain with me for the rest of my life.</para>
<para>Family, I've never known a greater leader. I'm sure you have never known a greater father, husband and grandfather. But know that it was all done for the right reasons, know that he was the most selfless person on the earth and know that he loved you very much. So, at the going down of the sun and in the morning, I want remember Jim Molan. I love you, mate, and I'm going to miss you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I too rise to pay tribute to Senator Major-General Jim Molan, AO, DSC, following his passing last month. I would also like to thank the member for Braddon for his very touching tribute that he just made of the senator.</para>
<para>Jim was a fierce advocate for the defence and veteran community of our nation. We are grateful for his commitment to our country and his loyal service over many, many decades. Senator Molan will be remembered for his 40 years of service to this country in the Australian Army. Retiring in 2008 as a major general, his distinguished service saw him deployed in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, Malaysia, Germany, the United States and Iraq. As we all know, following his retirement from our Australian Defence Force, his service to our nation did not cease.</para>
<para>Prior to joining our parliament, he also worked as a volunteer bush firefighter. As somebody who comes from a community that is very vulnerable to bushfire, as we see around the nation, I don't want to skip over this very important continuation of service to our country, because Jim's was a life of service. He took those skills that he had learned in our Defence Force, and, even in his private time, as an aviator and as someone committed to his local community, he gave up his time to make efforts to defend the lives and property of his fellow Australians in his community. That effort is undertaken every day by so many Australians both professionally and on a volunteer basis. In a week where we saw yet another plane crash of people that were looking after our community due to fire—fortunately those two aviators survived that horrific crash—it's important that that contribution and service of Senator Molan is remembered as well.</para>
<para>Following all of that, as many of us here, of course, are very familiar, the senator served in our nation's parliament. Jim is acknowledged for his passionate contributions to the national security debate in our political life. I have admired his advocacy regarding our defence and national security and his championing of issues affecting those who serve or have served in our Defence Force. Indeed, it's likely that he disagreed with the approaches of his own government just as much as, if not more than, he did ours. It's that steadfast commitment to what he saw as right, whether we agreed with him or not and whether others agreed or not, that absolutely can be seen as what we want to see in our parliamentary representatives as people standing up for they believe to be true. Jim undoubtedly did that every day that he served in our parliament.</para>
<para>He understood the challenges that face our veterans. He is an excellent example of what can be achieved by veterans—the contribution that they can make at a local or national level following their transition from military service. Our parliament is a richer place for the veterans who serve in it, who have stood up to defend the democratic beliefs that we all share. Jim was a true servant of our nation. As the National President of the RSL, Greg Melick, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Jim Molan had an enormous sense of duty and was a great servant of his country … He was a great friend to the veteran community and was much admired by those who knew him and those whom he had assisted.</para></quote>
<para>I think those comments sum up the sentiments of many. Indeed, they sum up the sentiments of people from my own church community who stopped me after mass only the other weekend to talk to me of their service in the Defence Force with Jim Molan and the high regard they had for him as a leader, as someone who sought not only to defend our nation but to look after the troops in his command as well. Jim's influence, no doubt, will be felt for many years to come.</para>
<para>I send my deepest condolences to Jim's family—to Anne, his four children and his delightful grandchildren, who did bring a smile to our faces at his funeral the other week—and to Jim's friends and colleagues. Indeed, I can only hope that people would say such nice things about me as a dad as his children said about him at his funeral. I thank Jim and his family for their service to our nation. Good soldiering. Rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the condolence motion for Senator Jim Molan, as others have in this place. I would thank each of the speakers who've come before me for their comments, particularly the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Braddon, who, I think, gave us a perspective that very few of us in this place would have, one that highlighted the qualities of Jim Molan probably better than most, of someone so close to him during his time in defence.</para>
<para>I want to start by not only offering my deepest condolences to the family—Jim's wife, Anne; their children, Sarah, Erin, Felicity and Michael; and the grandchildren—but, equally, thanking them for supporting Jim with everything that he did in his time in defence, in the community and in the parliament. It was a total life of service, but, as members in this place know, to be able to contribute to the community in such a way we need loved ones around us to support us in what we do. Well, Jim was able to contribute to his nation, with the support of his family, as well as everything else he did. I really want to acknowledge and thank his family for supporting him in everything that he did throughout his life. I'm sure Jim himself knew that so much of what he is able to achieve was done with the support and encouragement of such a close and loving family, and I thank them very much for that.</para>
<para>I'll miss Jim as a colleague and I know all of my colleagues feel the same way because, in his wonderful way, he had an influence on us all. We all know about his strong leadership. Leadership comes in so many different ways, and Jim showed it even in this place to all of us in the quiet way that he encouraged us, in the way that he listened to his colleagues, in the way that he encouraged us, as we heard from the member for Braddon. He encouraged us in the same way that he encouraged his troops. When you raised an issue with him, he encouraged you, he offered a few thoughts, but then he encouraged you to talk about what you thought about that particular issue.</para>
<para>That strong leadership is his legacy not only for his family and for us in this place but, as a member from Braddon said, for everyone who served with him and for him and through that loyalty that you've seen developed through such an honourable and decent human being who served his country with great honour. He is one of those people in Defence that, when I've been elsewhere in the world—and there is an enormous respect globally for our Australian Defence Force members—Jim would be at the top of that tree of respect. He is the reason why we are so well respected globally, as are members of our defence forces.</para>
<para>He was a true patriot and a great Australian. That's how I hope he's remembered, not just for his 40-year career in the Army and reaching the rank of major general. He took on some very challenging roles and brought the communities that he served with him along the way by being part of that community and supporting the community in what it wanted to achieve as well as helping that community. We saw that in Papua New Guinea, in East Timor, in Indonesia, in Malaysia and in Germany. He served in the US and in Iraq, as we know. Those smaller communities would certainly have benefited from Jim's wisdom and his willingness to listen and work with the local community and with our defence forces while they were there.</para>
<para>His Distinguished Service Cross was certainly well deserved. He had an extensive career in Defence that others have talked about and then he came into the Senate in 2017. Earlier than that, in 2013, one of the challenges we faced in this House was with the illegal maritime arrivals. Jim's role was as the envoy for stopping the boats. He was the very architect who helped to break the people smugglers' model and save the lives of a large number of people from overseas because they weren't arriving on leaky boats and being left stranded. Jim was a key part of saving those lives as well, and that's something that I would not want people to overlook. He actually helped to break the smugglers' business model, but more importantly he helped save people's lives. We have heard today about his role as a firefighter locally, another form of service for Jim. He was also a senator when he came into this place.</para>
<para>I found Jim to be a wonderful colleague and, equally, the friend that you could count on and the friend that would maintain a confidence. You could have conversations with Jim about a range of matters. He was someone I rang whenever I wanted his advice on military, national security and defence matters because, like so many others, I trusted him. I trusted his advice; I respected and trusted the advice that Jim gave me, especially on national security. We had many lively discussions, especially when I had a good read of his most recent book, <inline font-style="italic">Danger </inline><inline font-style="italic">On</inline><inline font-style="italic">Our </inline><inline font-style="italic">Doorstep</inline>. I have a feeling that this particular work—in part, as he said, fiction and then focused on the facts—is being used in a broader sense by some of our Western allies and referenced for a range of other purposes in a broader global security sense. I have no doubt about that, given the contents of that book. We had several discussions over what he'd written and the conclusions he'd reached and his analysis that was contained throughout that book.</para>
<para>Well, as has been said, none of us were really ever in any doubt as to what Jim thought or believed in, because he was a patriot and he had strong views. But, equally, when you had a discussion with Jim, Jim didn't talk down to you. In spite of his broader knowledge and experience than you had in that field, your views were respected, valued. He listened and he was thoughtful about what you had to offer, and he thought before he gave you a response. He was just a great bloke. I just found him a great bloke and a great colleague, and someone who, as I say, was a really respected and trusted source of information and advice.</para>
<para>Then, when he was fighting cancer, I think what we all saw, particularly on our side, who were with him throughout that process and saw the struggle, was that courage and passion he brought to his role, in his family, in his community, in the Army was the same as what he brought to his fight against cancer: positive, facing forward, keeping up a really strong presence, not giving in, and doing his best to fight it. I'm sure, when you saw him on television or you saw him interviewed, even when he was from home, Jim wanted you to see him still fighting the fight, whether it was about issues—the cancer was another fight that basically he didn't make much of. He was fighting other fights for the good of this nation, and that's what he did right until the last. And I'm sure that's an enduring memory for us all.</para>
<para>Jim was a truly great Australian, a great patriot. He provided incredible service to Australia that is an example for us all. Jim's earnt the right to rest in peace, but he's left an incredible legacy for this nation and one that we should all work in this place to not forget and to seek to emulate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the condolence motion for Senator Jim Molan AO, DSC. I knew Jim only a little, as a fellow member of the Coalition Policy Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs. Since coming to this place following the May election, my days and nights have been peppered with group chats messages from Senator Molan, sharing his wisdom, his observations, his snippets of guidance and good humour for all of us. It has been a much quieter place without him.</para>
<para>But I have the benefit of having part of the mighty Molan family in my electorate of Flinders. Helen Gleeson, Jim's eldest sibling, his big sister, is an avid, dedicated, forceful presence in the Mornington Peninsula, a great volunteer, both a servant and leader of my local Liberal Party branch, the mighty Sorrento/Portsea branch. Helen holds her own in that space but has always been very proud of, and keen to mention, her little brother Jim. So, for my addition to this condolence motion today, I asked Helen to share her words, and it is now those words which I will share with you in this chamber:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a little about Jim.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am the eldest, Jim number four.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We six are spread over seventeen years—god bless my mum—so we each have various memories but the fact that we gathered from various parts of Australia for his funeral, as did our children, his nieces and nephews, tells you something of the love in the family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">While it has been wonderful, and somewhat overwhelming to hear the accolades expressed for Jim, to me he was, and will always remain, my little brother.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I always referred to him as 'little bro' and he to me as 'big sis'—somewhat given ironic his six ft four and my barely five ft two!</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Jim was number four of our six and at ten years younger than me, he has gone far too soon.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Jim was a wanderer.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Aged about two he escaped his cot and was eventually found on the Ivanhoe station having negotiated several major intersections and only failing to board the train because 'the policeman wouldn't let me'. In these circumstances we should not have been surprised at his choice of career.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">With three 'big' and very outspoken sisters, he learned early to be tolerant and to stand up for what he believed in.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">He grew up in a household where a variety of points of view were encouraged and discussions could be loud and forceful. A highly charged political environment from the early days. But one full of love and laughter.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We were never allowed to take ourselves too seriously.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It will be some time before my hand stops reaching for the phone to send a text when something political earns my ire.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">And I will miss those 7 am phone calls responding to such texts. We both have odd sleep patterns.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">What a delight it was to welcome Anne into our family.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Another strong woman who was happily absorbed into our midst.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Jim would not have been or achieved what he did without her. She was his other half.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have a precious photo of a handsome young man setting forth for Duntroon. My son, Phil, Jim's nephew, remembers visits to his grandmother's home where this photo had pride of place.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My mother had great pride in the achievements of all her children—and rightly so as she sacrificed to ensure our education, however, how we all laughed each time she began a sentence with, 'My son, the General …'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Rest in peace, little bro.</inline></para></quote>
<para>I thank Helen for these fine words. And my thanks also go the Helen's husband, Tom, as well as her brother Maurice and his partner, Heidi, for joining us at the Portsea pub in the presence of the member for Dickson and Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, a few weeks ago, shortly before Jim's funeral so that together they could all share memories and tales of the great man, before the formality of events here in Canberra.</para>
<para>I feel that in Flinders we are lucky to have a little bit of Jim in our midst. My deepest sympathies also go to Jim's immediate family: Anne, of course, of whom Helen wrote so beautifully, but also his children—his daughters, Sarah, Erin and Felicity; his son, Michael; and his five grandchildren. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PIKE</name>
    <name.id>300120</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a privilege to rise this afternoon to honour the life of Jim Molan AO, DSC. He will be remembered as a patriot who served our country with distinction as a soldier, a senator, a volunteer firefighter, an author and a policy problem solver. His was a life of dedicated service: service to his country, service to his family and service to his friends. To me, as a first-term MP, he was incredibly generous with his time and advice, and I'll certainly miss his guidance and wisdom.</para>
<para>Jim, of course, served in many roles in the Australian Army, the most significant of which was his tenure as chief of operations for the coalition forces in Iraq. When you consider the number of personnel and the complexity of that mission, this is probably the most senior and consequential position held by an Australian general since the Second World War. His service was instrumental in repelling insurgents and ensuring the security of Iraq's transport and infrastructure. He played no small part in the success of that engagement, and I'm certain that, when the passage of time allows for a full historical analysis of what occurred in that conflict, Jim Molan's contribution will be highly commended. He was, of course, awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, and from the United States government he was awarded the Legion of Merit.</para>
<para>A few short years after Jim's retirement from the Army, I invited him to speak at a dinner that I was organising, following a rugby game between the Young Liberals and the Young Nationals in Bungendore, just down the road here, near to where Jim was living at the time on the outskirts of Canberra. Jim provided a completely unvarnished assessment of the war in Iraq, what was required to win and where the strategic landscape was sitting. All attendees were struck by the clarity and the accuracy of his analysis. As time progressed, nearly all the factors that he flagged that night came to pass. All the potential obstacles were struck, and his proposed solutions were all eventually adopted.</para>
<para>He was a man who saw much further than others did. He was not just a strategic visionary but also someone with a capacity to identify the path forward towards victory. Of course, his capacity for service and his sharp, strategic mind continued to be engaged by the Australian government long after his retirement from the Army. He played an instrumental role in Operation Sovereign Borders. He was appointed as a special advisor to the defence minister and provided advice on the <inline font-style="italic">2016 Defence </inline><inline font-style="italic">white pap</inline><inline font-style="italic">er</inline>. And, of course, his contribution to the Senate over recent years was a fitting avenue for his skills and his years of experience. His passion for national security issues, his passion for veterans and his passion for regional Australians will stand in my mind as the enduring legacy of his amazing public service.</para>
<para>His final book, <inline font-style="italic">Danger </inline><inline font-style="italic">on our </inline><inline font-style="italic">Doorstep</inline>, will stand as a warning for years to come about the ambitions and military build-up of the CCP. I recently bought many copies of this book as Christmas presents for some of the people who had assisted me throughout the year with my work, and Jim was kind enough, despite his failing health in those last weeks of his life, to write a thoughtful handwritten message to each recipient. This was such a part of who Jim was: always willing to go the extra mile; no task too much, to support a colleague. I know these books will be treasured for years to come. And I will certainly be doing what I can do to ensure that his message against national defence complacency is heeded by our government.</para>
<para>To his wife, Anne, his children and his grandchildren: we thank you for sharing Jim. Thank you for sharing him with your nation for so many decades. He was a great Australian, and he will be greatly missed. Jim Molan, rest in eternal peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Jim Molan loved Australia. He served and fought for Australia wholeheartedly. Jim began his service to Australia eight years before I was born. He entered Duntroon in 1968. He entered parliament half a century later, at an age when he could have been enjoying his military pension. Instead, he sought to serve again.</para>
<para>For many of us, when elected to the parliament, we seek to be worthy of making a contribution to it. Jim entered the Senate already worthy. Jim was, in every sense, a giant when he arrived. He'd been deployed in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Malaysia, Germany, the United States and, of course, Iraq. No Australian soldier served in a more senior role in the Iraq war. As the multinational chief of operations in Iraq, it's said that Jim had more personnel under his operational command than any Australian general since World War II. No parliamentarian in this building had the lived experience and deep working knowledge of complex military strategy that Jim Molan had.</para>
<para>When Jim entered the Senate, it had been almost 60 years since a person of two-star rank had served in this place. In the history of the Commonwealth, 11 major-generals and one air vice-marshal have entered the parliament, including eight who served in the Great War. One of those was the great Pompey Elliott, and I see some similarities between Jim Molan and Pompey Elliott. They both chose the Senate. They both had huge grassroots followings. They both saw politics as a way of arguing for their passions. For Pompey, it was the advancement and support of the men he'd served with. For Jim, it was Australia's defence and security preparedness. In many ways, Pompey looked back—understandable, given the trauma of the Great War—but Jim was always looking forward. Though a wholehearted supporter of our alliance with United States, Jim believed in Australian self-reliance and in an Australian Defence Force and security agencies that were properly funded, equipped and prepared.</para>
<para>Every part about Jim was brave. He was willing to put himself on the line. On one occasion in East Timor, Jim transported half a dozen nuns to the airport. They were pursued by a gunman on a motorbike. The gunman had a rifle. In a scene that almost sounds like a movie, Jim hit the brakes and the gunman slammed into the back of the vehicle. Jim got the nuns to the airport safely and then continued with further evacuations.</para>
<para>And Jim was brave here. On entering parliament—and, indeed, on his death—he faced disgraceful slurs. Keyboard warriors and populist politicians on the extreme green left chose the disgraceful path of blaming a soldier for the decisions and strategy of an elected government. The Australian soldier should never be dishonoured. Sadly, the toxicity of some meant that they tried but failed. But Jim Molan had their measure. As he said when he entered this place, if opponents don't speak against you, you're probably not standing up for enough.</para>
<para>To those who sought to skirmish his good name: you only brought dishonour on yourself. He wore the uniform that you didn't, and you have no right to attack his service.</para>
<para>Jim always spoke clearly. He wrote many columns. The headline was always the crux: 'Are we in this war to win it?' or 'Army needs to commit to victory', 'We can win the Afghan war but we are being led by donkeys', 'Disruption of Gulf fuel is a scenario we must prepare for', and 'End the pussyfooting in Afghan war'. 'Pussyfooting'—that's such a Molan word! He never took a step backwards.</para>
<para>My first association with Jim was through the Menzies Research Centre, where he was an active participant, both in uniform and in retirement, in the defence and security roundtables that the centre ran. He also agreed to contribute a really thoughtful and forward leaning chapter to the Menzies Research Centre book <inline font-style="italic">Don</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline><inline font-style="italic">t Leave Us with the Bill: The Case Against an Australian Bill of Rights</inline>, where he demonstrated the possible unintended consequences of a bill of rights to Australians on active service. In his chapter, he prefaced an argument with some words that seemed to summarise the approach that Jim took to almost every defence and security issue. He wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I fear that the unforeseen will occur, as it normally does …</para></quote>
<para>Jim Molan always expected the unforeseen, and that required him to walk a lonely path. Despite his eminence, his status and his many other commitments, Jim made the effort to come to the launch of the book in almost every state capital. It demonstrated a strong commitment to the issue but, even more, his commitment to me as a friend.</para>
<para>I enjoyed working closely with Jim on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, where he brought his years of thinking about strategy and national security. He also brought a particular knowledge about defence technology to the table, and I want to say I think Jim was right about the need for a national security strategy for this country. I hope, as a memorial to Jim, that Australians pursue this issue, because he was ahead of his time in reminding us of the importance of having a national security strategy.</para>
<para>In fairness, I have to admit that occasionally Jim and I disagreed over party matters. Jim was a change agent in our party. He believed in democracy, in grassroots power—so much so he took on the factions and sought change. Why, he was asked. It was because—and I quote—'As a soldier I have accompanied five separate nations down the road to democracy.' Democracy was his guiding light.</para>
<para>It says something of Jim that after being diagnosed with cancer he accelerated his efforts and completed <inline font-style="italic">Danger On Our Doorstep</inline>. Quoting Sun Tzu, he wrote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.</para></quote>
<para>Our country is better and, indeed, safer because of the service of Major General and then Senator Jim Molan. To Jim's wife Anne, his children, and his grandchildren I send my love and prayers. May the memory of this truly great Australian be a blessing.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's been a privilege hearing the wonderful condolences that are being made by Jim's friends from not just our party but across the aisle. He was someone who left a mark in so many ways.</para>
<para>Can I begin, first of all, by acknowledging his family. They are the ones who are hurting most of all—to Anne; their wonderful children, Sarah, Erin, Felicity and Michael; and also to the wonderful grandchildren. There are also extended family, some of whom are linked to my electorate. Jim has a brother who lives in my electorate, and one of my favourite volunteers is one of his cousins. I only recently found out that they were cousins. They are all hurting too and will miss him deeply.</para>
<para>It's a wonderful thing when we sit down and put pen to paper for our first speech. We get to think about who we are, what we stand for and what we hope to achieve in this place. It's been delightful reading Jim's first speech again. I read it in preparation for my own, and I've come back to it. Could I begin with his first sentence. He said this:</para>
<list>Mr President, thank you very much. Can I begin by saying that there's probably no-one in this entire chamber this evening who is listening to this who is more surprised than I am that I'm giving a first speech in the Australian Senate.</list>
<para>In those very first words, he was showing that he had no expectations to be there, because throughout his life he never had any expectations or entitlement to anything. He put his hand up to serve others in many different ways, and that included the Senate. He fought so hard to be there.</para>
<para>He was a fierce advocate for party democracy, and that wasn't born out of self-interest, because he was popular with the membership for good reason. It was because Jim knew an important thing: that if you believe in a value—and the Liberal Party believes in democracy—then you must practise it. Jim was from the old school where we practise what we preach, and if we don't practise it then there's a real question mark about whether we believe it. I think he left the New South Wales division in much better shape for having been a fierce advocate for party democracy. There were many other points of this speech that I'd like to just quickly highlight. He talked about his military service and said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Although I retired from the Army nine years ago, my 40 years as a soldier taught me a lot that seems applicable to parliamentary and wider social life. First, leadership is everything. Whenever we wanted to achieve real effects, even in this technology dominated world, we still turned to the best person. As chief of operations in Iraq, I was at the centre of the most technically advanced headquarters in the history of war, yet we consistently turned to people as people when we wanted to get things done. Human leadership in this age of technology has never been more important, be it in the military or in society.</para></quote>
<para>When we pick up a newspaper or look at our TV—and we had recently in the parliament the first AI generated speech—we must never forget that, despite all of the advances in technology, people are the heart of our democracy and our society. The second thing, he said, was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australia brings its unique culture into its military. Blind obedience to orders or authority does not make good soldiers; nor does it make good citizens. We encourage our diggers to question every order for as long as possible because all of us are a lot smarter than any one of us. But, when the final decision is made by the boss, we expect support for that decision until the situation changes significantly. This ethos and duty, this understanding of loyalty and teamwork in a questioning environment, is something that I intend to personally carry into this house.</para></quote>
<para>And he concluded with this:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I need to say that the only order I ever obeyed without question was 'Duck!'</para></quote>
<para>That's such an important cultural feature of our military. You have a chain of command, and you obey orders on pain of 20 years in prison if it's on operations, but that doesn't mean you follow them blindly. We respect the autonomy and judgement of individuals, even within the military.</para>
<para>Jim then focused on ethics, and that was core of who he was. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Whatever I find myself doing in this great institution, I will work for it to be ethical. Ethics is about consistently doing the right thing, about being secretly beholden to no-one, and, in a political and parliamentary sense, about working for the voters who elected us. In terms of the Liberal Party, it means representing the members of my party and voters rather than disguised narrow … interests.</para></quote>
<para>He said he was 'of no faction', and it was the voters who would guide him. Many others have spoken about the line where he said, 'If opponents don't speak against you, you are probably not standing up for enough.' And he referred to some of the Google images that people might be aware of. Finally, he concluded with this. He had a quote from Napoleon: 'If you want to learn a nation's interests, go to the graves of its soldiers.' He continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Many Australian dead have been brought back to Australia, but many still lie close to where they fell. Australia's interests lie across the face of this earth. We are an international nation with worldwide interests. I've visited many battlefields and played cameo parts on some. What strikes me is the consistent performance of Australian soldiers, sailors and airmen over more than 100 years and around the world. Today's soldiers are as good as, if not better than, any we have sent overseas, and much of that is due to our Australian culture and the leadership, training and equipment that accompany them. To me, they represent everything that is good about Australia because they are Australian.</para></quote>
<para>He concluded with, 'I dedicate my efforts in this house to them.' And he said, 'Thank you.'</para>
<para>Jim—his duty is done, and it's fitting that his final words in his first speech were that he was willing to serve others and honour their memory. So we say to Jim: 'Thank you for your service. We will miss you.'</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is an honour, as we just heard from the member for Menzies, to rise to speak on this condolence motion to remember a great Australian: Senator Jim Molan AO DSC, a senator, a soldier, a colleague, a friend, a great Australian and a patriot. I'd like to start by extending my deepest condolences to Jim's beloved wife, Anne; to his four children, Sarah, Erin, Felicity and Mick; and his grandkids—all of whom I know he loved dearly. I'd also like to acknowledge his staff, who worked tirelessly to support Jim and the people of New South Wales in challenging circumstances.</para>
<para>Jim was a big man with a big heart. He loved his family dearly, and he loved his country dearly. His contribution to this nation as a senator and a soldier over many years is well known. We've heard many wonderful tributes over recent weeks, including just a moment ago. To me, Jim was always a man you could trust. He was as good as his word. He was genuine, up-front, honest—one of our nation's absolute finest. He was a person I was proud to call a friend, and a colleague who dedicated his life to making our nation a better place. He was a true servant leader. We talk a lot about servant leadership, but this man personified it. His long career in defence saw him deployed in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, East Timor, Malaysia, Germany, the US and Iraq. He was an accomplished infantryman and helicopter pilot. Four decades in, he retired from service at the rank of Major General. His service was honoured when he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his role in Indonesia and East Timor, and he received the Distinguished Service Cross, as well, for distinguished command and leadership in Iraq.</para>
<para>Retirement wasn't for Jim. He didn't put his feet up and head off on holidays. He continued to advocate strongly on issues that were important to him. He was a passionate believer in the things that he thought were important to the success of this nation, and nothing was going to stop him. Ironically enough for a military man, he was not a man who took orders well, and he would admit that himself. He liked to get out there and advocate for the things that he really believed in. One of the things he did after his so-called retirement was to become a special envoy for Operation Sovereign Borders, which was an extraordinary initiative that delivered extraordinary outcomes, which this country has benefited from in the years that have followed. I know he was proud of the policy in that area, and so he should have been.</para>
<para>I had particular engagement and work with Jim in two areas. The first of those was when I was Minister for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security. Jim and I would talk about the importance cybersecurity for the security of this nation, and, as Minister for Energy, we'd talk about the importance of energy security for this nation. One of the things that consistently came out of our conversations was the absolute criticality of integrating across all of these areas—cybersecurity, energy security, defence and border security. We discussed the need to recognise that all of these areas interact, and out of that came his focus on developing a national security strategy. He was absolutely right on this; there is no question in my mind that Jim nailed this. He became passionate, as he always did in his advocacy, about making sure he could keep Australians safe in every domain. I think that focus on a national security strategy was right and well articulated, and in his final book he laid it out very clearly.</para>
<para>The second area where Jim and I worked closely was in the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. This is not always an easy place to drive reform; it has its challenges, but Jim and I were both passionate about the need to democratise the party—the need to give power to the grassroots, the need to make sure that the members had genuine influence in the future of the party and that there was a reason for people to join up, to return to being a mass movement, to come into the party en masse in the belief in the things that we care about as Liberals. Jim was a firebrand on these issues, and we worked and spoke together on many occasions. Whether it was at the North Sydney Leagues Club, the Crookwell showgrounds or many locations through Eden-Monaro, which was a part of the world that he lived in and absolutely loved, Jim and I worked again and again as a team to convince people across the New South Wales Liberal Party that this was the path to go on. The outcome at Rosehill several years ago, where the party voted in favour of democratisation, would never have happened without the hard work of Jim Molan. There have been backward steps and forward steps since that time, but that was a pivotal moment in the future of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, and Jim Molan was absolutely central to it. His passion, energy and drive, alongside others who believed in it like he did, made all of that possible.</para>
<para>Jim made an enormous contribution across so many areas throughout his wonderful life. I was privileged to be at his funeral only a couple of weeks ago, and it was a tough farewell. Jim, I miss you, mate.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 13:05 to 15:59</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>146</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022</title>
          <page.no>146</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body background="" style="" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships">
            <a href="r6963" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GARLAND</name>
    <name.id>295588</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm an extremely passionate advocate for higher education as both someone who's worked for years in the sector and someone who represents an electorate with Monash University, Deakin University and the University of Divinity campuses, so I know how important our nation's support for higher education is and how important it is to my own local community of Chisholm and our local economy. I do believe we have some of the finest researchers and thinkers in the world in Australia, but we need to do more to see their great ideas thrive and get transformed into innovative products. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to support our universities in turning Australia's world-class research into the innovative products and processes for the businesses of the future.</para>
<para>In the 2022 World Intellectual Property Organization's Global Innovation Index, Australia was ranked fifth in the world for our human capital and research, which is just incredible and again points to the fact that we have some of the finest minds in the world working right here in Australia. Many of them are working in my electorate of Chisholm, and I'm very proud of that. But we do have a gap when it comes to getting that world-class research to the stage where it can be translated into practical and commercial applications. Research translation and commercialisation is really important, and we need to do better as a nation on that front. I hear about this all the time when I talk to the universities in my electorate and to the businesses in my electorate who are wanting to partner with researchers. But there is such a significant gap at the moment in translation and commercialisation, and that's unfortunately really holding us back as a country. This gap limits those relationships and links that can be forged right across the eastern and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, in my electorate, with lots of different companies, including those in advanced manufacturing, medical technologies and defence. Many companies would love to be able to do more work with the researchers that live, study and work in our local area.</para>
<para>Research translation and commercialisation is important on a number of fronts. It means that we get a bigger dividend from our investment in research in this country, and that's really important. New technologies developed in Australia improve our production processes. They reduce costs, create innovative new products and lead to greater diversity in our exports, which is really good for our trading relationships and our wealth as a nation. On that same Global Innovation Index where we were ranked fifth in the world for human capital and research—and that is incredible—we were ranked 37th for our knowledge and technology outputs, so we're really seeing a significant gap in those rankings. This means that right now we're not realising the full potential of our university research because we lack the support needed to translate that research and bring it to the commercialisation stage. This is something we need to address. We must address it if we're going to be able to reap the greatest benefits from the wonderful work being undertaken every day in universities right across Australia.</para>
<para>The former government's university research commercialisation panel did consider this problem and recommended a dedicated funding program to help higher education providers to bridge this gap. That's what this bill does. This bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to provide legislative authority to establish Australia's Economic Accelerator program in the Other Grants Guidelines (Research) made under that act. Australia's Economic Accelerator program, or AEA program, is a new funding program targeted at supporting research translation and commercialisation within our universities. It is a program that we should be really excited about and supportive of. This helps us as a nation to unlocks so much fantastic potential, and it will lead to better outcomes for researchers, universities and Australia as we are able to more fully realise the translation and commercialisation possibilities generated by ideas.</para>
<para>Table A and B universities will be able to apply for project funding to progress their projects to a state of commercial investor readiness. All the universities in my electorate are in these categories, and I'm really looking forward to working with them and seeing what they are able to do with this new opportunity. Distinct from other funding models in research, the AEA will have a fast-fail focus. It will fill a gap in the current research commercialisation landscape by funding translational research from early-stage research into a product that shows viability for industry partnership and investment, so we'll be able to know early on what is going to be able to transition into more advanced stages and therefore be more successful. Projects that progress through that program will do so based on the continued success and achievement milestones in the program. This funding will benefit projects which have high commercialisation potential but which are at proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale stage.</para>
<para>In what I think is some really exciting alignment here, funding will be targeted at projects which sit within the priority areas identified in the government's National Reconstruction Fund, which is yet another incredibly important and exciting initiative of the Albanese government and one which I am, frankly, genuinely disappointed that those opposite have indicated they won't support. We stand at a terribly significant moment of rebuilding the nation after the worst impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it would be wonderful if the parliament were able to unite in an effort to stimulate the economy and stimulate industry. I do urge those opposite to reconsider. We get one opportunity to rebuild the country after the kind of crisis we've just seen, and it would be really great if we could unite and do it right. I would encourage those opposite to be on the right side of history here when it comes to supporting industry, the economy and our communities.</para>
<para>The establishment of a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund is one of the largest peacetime investments in our country's manufacturing capability in living memory. The projects under the AEA program will align with the priority areas of that fund. This alignment is very welcome in my community. The people I've spoken to are incredibly thrilled about this. We will be focusing on the priority areas of value-adding in resources; in agriculture, forestry and fisheries; in transport; in medical science; in renewables and low-emission technologies; in defence capabilities; and in enabling capabilities across sectors like robotics, AI and quantum technologies. I think of the interactions that these priority areas and the universities in my electorate already have, and I've been speaking to them about the work we as a government are undertaking. It is really thrilling to think about the new points of engagement that will be made possible and the new products and ideas to emerge from the AEA as well as from the National Reconstruction Fund. These are areas where Australian research already has runs on the board, and the measures in this bill will support bringing that research to maturity, utilisation and commercialisation.</para>
<para>The bill establishes a governance framework for the AEA program with an advisory board of up to eight expert representatives from government, industry, business and research sectors. The advisory board will oversee the program and make recommendations for grants in accordance with a research commercialisation strategy.</para>
<para>The bill also provides legislative authority to establish a National Industry PhD Program. This new program offers a really great new opportunity to pursue a higher degree and to be a leading part of the industries of the future. We already have a lot of people with PhDs in my community—including me—and I'm really excited about being able to expand opportunities to people right across my community who are interested in pursuing research through the National Industry PhD Program. This is about equipping our PhD students with the skills they need to better translate university research into a range of commercialisation outcomes. The measures will provide a basis for new industry-led postgraduate programs that create a clear and structured career pathway in innovation- and commercialisation-focused research. These programs are intended to embed researchers in industry settings, enhancing research commercialisation and translation skills and helping to build research careers in the industry.</para>
<para>We are so fortunate in this country to have world-leading researchers in our higher education sector, and this bill supports our higher education providers. It supports the providers in my electorate and in communities right across the country, and the researchers who work there, in realising the great potential of Australian ingenuity and innovation. This bill will make it much easier for universities and businesses to work together to commercialise research, which will build our sovereign capability and boost our economy. I'm really looking forward to the possibilities this will open up for the people in Chisholm, and I'm really glad to be able to support this bill today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition supports the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia’s Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, which is, in great part, the reintroduction of the measures introduced by the former coalition government. We'd led a significant piece of work to review our government's significant investment in research to drive even greater benefits for our economy. And, yes, we do know that while we undertake world-leading research and publish more than 100,000 academic papers, we certainly need to do a lot more beyond that initial exploration and translate that into commercial applications to meet some of our greatest challenges.</para>
<para>This will not only highlight Australia's incredible research minds—and they are incredible—but will also provide a boost to our productivity and create new jobs and new industries. The translation element that we introduced was a key component of our $2.2 billion University Research Commercialisation Package, and it outlined a number of key initiatives by placing national manufacturing priorities at the core of Australian government funded research by using priority driven schemes to ramp up commercialisation and deliver university research funding reform to strengthen initiatives for genuine collaboration with industry—this is a key part—and by investing in people who are skilled in university and industry collaboration.</para>
<para>We had a number of elements to our actual plan in that bill. The Trailblazer Universities Program was to boost R&D and drive commercialisation outcomes. There was Australia's Economic Accelerator. There was funding—$150 million—for the CSIRO Main Sequence ventures program to back start-up companies and help create commercial opportunities for Australian research. There was investment in 1,800 industry PhDs and 800 fellows over 10 years as part of that, and a new IP framework for universities to support greater university and industry collaboration—and that is the key, that industry and university collaboration. And even providing what industry needs, and will need ahead, was part of the collaboration.</para>
<para>We had identified a number of priorities in what we put forward, from medical products to food and beverage to recycling and clean energy, resources technology and critical minerals processing, the defence industry and, of course, that critical element of space.</para>
<para>The next element was investment in Australia's Economic Accelerator, which this bill essentially is about today, and making the provisions to support our universities to commercialise what is really world-leading research. We designed the program around initial proof of concept, through that valley of death where projects are at greatest risk of not proceeding through to commercial realisation.</para>
<para>I want to touch on the $150 million we committed to the CSIRO's Main Sequence venture. But, in looking at that, I want to go back to some of the things Australians have done well throughout history, to look at some of the wonderful minds we have, the creative minds both formally and informally, in our universities and beyond. I go back to the stump-jump plough, which was really innovative technology in its time. It was a great piece of gear. There are simple things like the Hills Hoist. And we've got a local bloke in my part of the world, Terry Torr, who invented a wonderful drain spinner that did an enormous amount of work. He was just a bloke who was fixing a problem. We had the Marshall and Roesner super spreader that has been really critical for the agricultural sector.</para>
<para>In Australia, we look at how good we are and how good our researchers and scientists are in this space. Australia is world-leading in quantum computing and IVF, through the Monash IVF program. We look at how good we are in the environmental space with solar cells, the world's first e-waste microfactory and the polymers to clean up contaminants.</para>
<para>In the medical field we are such leaders in this space, from Gardasil vaccines for cervical cancer through the University of Queensland to nanopatch production for vaccines. We've seen innovations just one after the other in Australia. Look at the black box flight recorder. That came out of Australia. It was invented by an Australian scientist, as was spray-on skin from Professor Fiona Wood, from Perth in Western Australia. Look at the incredible effect this had on burns victims. Through this amazing work and innovation, she was credited with saving 28 lives. Another Australian doctor and physicist worked on the electronic pacemaker.</para>
<para>There is the platform for Google Maps—we often don't celebrate enough how good our researchers and our scientists are. There was the medical application of penicillin and, something basic for all of us, polymer banknotes. I'm really proud of the cochlear implant. I think all of us in this House and around Australia would be particularly proud of this Australian device and where it's got to and how it has changed people's lives.</para>
<para>Who would have thought that something as simple as the electric drill was invented and created in Australia? And who can forget Ben Lexcen's winged keel that helped Australia II win that classic America's Cup in 1983. It was all done and created and developed in Australia, like Wi-Fi technology through the CSIRO and the ultrasound scanner. So many of these, particularly in their early stages, came through universities. There is even the plastic spectacle lens—things that we don't think about. It's scratch resistant. It was the first one and was made in Australia and created in Australia.</para>
<para>There are all sorts of wonderful inventions that have started in Australia, but we need to do even more in this space. I just wonder, with all of these things we see on the list that I have just touched on—it's just the tip of the iceberg—what have we missed out on that we haven't commercialised? This bill is important so that we create that connection and improve that process so that we don't miss out on even more innovations and opportunities in Australia and so we provide the platform for other budding scientists and young people who are going to solve so many problems. We look to foster those young minds and researchers, and just simply say to them, 'What problem is it that you want to fix?' because they will have a lot of answers to the problems and the issues that we are facing.</para>
<para>We saw through our extraordinary investment in the Medical Research Future Fund and the grant recipients there that they were mostly universities. So these recipients, the universities, have translated their research into commercialisation in Australia. We were particularly proud as a coalition of introducing and creating this Medical Research Future Fund, and I can look at all the universities and the extraordinary research that has benefited from that particular fund. When I look down the list, there is everything from research and investment into the commercialisation around Australian brain cancer help, there was cardiovascular help, there was dementia and aged care and ageing projects and programs. For me, personally, there is endometriosis research that's looking for that cure for all of those women who are affected by endometriosis in Australia, not only to introduce that first ever national plan but the endometriosis research that is so critical because there is no cure.</para>
<para>To go on from endometriosis, the investment from our amazing Medical Research Future Fund into research around epilepsy, MMD, Parkinson's, various cancers and, even yesterday, into ovarian cancer and coronary heart diseases, genomics. There are so many other areas that benefit from the Medical Research Future Fund. This constant investment in research and then translating that into commercialisation is a critical part of what we need to keep investing in and showing confidence in.</para>
<para>The Medical Research Future Fund is an enduring legacy of the coalition government for the benefit of all Australians. It sees university research funding actually translated into better health outcomes for Australians, as well as commercial results for Australian companies and individuals.</para>
<para>The CSIRO Innovation Fund, launched by the coalition in 2016, led to the creation of what we see here, the main sequence ventures, which led to over 60 company collaborative projects with universities. That's a great outcome. The additional $150 million that we allocated to that in February 2022 was focused on accelerating and commercialising the manufacturing priorities I spoke of earlier.</para>
<para>The AEA program will keep working to attract projects with high commercialisation potential, and that's a really critical part of what we will see through this bill. I am really looking forward to seeing what research is actually commercialised as a result of this investment. We will see more of that as this investment is realised, in the knowledge that research takes time. But I think that very close and strong dedicated involvement not only of the universities and their researchers but with industry and business will really focus the investment, not only on the greatest commercialisation potential but also where the greatest benefit for the Australian community and economy is in a broader sense.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia has a world-class university sector. From providing high-quality education to top-tier research which revolutionises the world in which we live, there is much to be proud of in our higher education sector. The minister has already stated that Australia was ranked fifth in the world for our human capital and research in the 2022 World Intellectual Property Organization's global innovation index. That is a great achievement for this country.</para>
<para>University staff and students across Australia do amazing and inspiring work, which, frankly, they aren't credited for nearly enough. However, there is still more work to be done and improvements to be made, not least in employment practices at our universities, with far too much university work casualised and that must change.</para>
<para>On the same global innovation index where we are leading on research, we are ranked just 37th for knowledge and technology outputs. We are not currently realising our full potential in university research but that is about to change. This bill will allow Australia to realise its full potential in the university research sector by providing much-needed support to bring research into the translation and commercialisation stage. The former government's university research commercialisation panel considered this problem and it recommended that a dedicated funding program was required to help higher education providers bridge the gap. This bill acts on that recommendation and makes it real. It is no good just talking about it; you've actually got to do it.</para>
<para>At its core, this bill establishes Australia's Economic Accelerator Program under the Higher Education Support Act. This new funding program will be targeted at supporting research translation and commercialisation within our universities, enabling our universities across Australia to apply for project funding to progress their projects to a commercial investor readiness state. This funding won't just focus on shovel-ready research projects but will also fill the gap in funding and support for projects that have high commercialisation, or are at proof-of-concept or proof-of-scale stage. This will open up research potential in ways that have never been done before and provide the ability for worthwhile projects to proceed on merit rather than being blocked at the gate due to an inability to find funding support.</para>
<para>This bill also provides legislative authority to establish a National Industry PhD Program. This will ensure that PhD candidates are equipped with the skills they need to better turn research at university into a range of commercialisation outcomes. This measure will be the bedrock of a new industry-led postgraduate program that will create a clear and structured pathway in innovation and research that is focused on commercialisation. This bill and these measures ensure that our world-leading researchers and our world-leading higher education sector can be better supported in the realisation of Australia's great innovative potential.</para>
<para>With this amendment to the act, universities listed on tables A and B will be eligible for the funding support described in this bill, including the University of Tasmania, which provides high-quality and world-renowned education. UTAS has three main campuses across Tasmania: Burnie in the north-west, Newnham in the north and Sandy Bay in the south—although that's a matter of conjecture now that Sandy Bay could be shifting into central Hobart, but that's probably an argument for another time. UTAS has a wide remit but is particularly well known for its focus on marine science and, increasingly, space science.</para>
<para>Last month I attended the launch of the upgraded space antenna at the UTAS Greenhill Observatory in my electorate. This $2 million communications antenna upgrade, supported by the Australian government and the Australian Space Agency's Space Infrastructure Fund, addresses the gap in national space infrastructure. It will speed up Australia's delivery of space based services and will increase our contribution to space science globally. I was very pleased to address the launch on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Science, Ed Husic. I spoke of the increasing importance of space science both commercially and strategically. UTAS, as part of its Southern Skies Network, provides radio and optical astronomy, as well as radio communications and geospatial modelling, via its network of space telescopes and antenna infrastructure across Australia, including in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. This shows the breadth and significance of university research in this area, which is of critical importance to Australia's future and to which UTAS, down there in Tasmania, is a leading contributor.</para>
<para>UTAS already has a highly respected research component, and now, under the Albanese government, it will be further supported so it can continue to provide world-leading research. Supporting UTAS benefits the people in my electorate, better enabling them to pursue careers in research and jobs that come with the commercialisation of such research. This government is offering Australians more education and career opportunities in higher education, and I am proud to play my part in that.</para>
<para>Labor has a proud history of supporting Australians to achieve higher education. It was Gough Whitlam who first made university education accessible to so many more Australians, a reform which gave so many working-class kids across our country the opportunity for higher education, something they had previously been denied due to the wealth bracket in which they were born. You've got to see what you can become, and, for the first time in Australia's history, more working-class kids could see that a pathway to higher education was open to them. They took that opportunity, and the country has been transformed as a result.</para>
<para>In 2009, the Rudd government ensured fair funding for universities by providing funding for every eligible student they teach, rather than through a system of rationed places. This provided a significant shift in funding, which led to a more student centred funding system. Julia Gillard, as Minister for Education, set a strong target in 2008: to increase the proportion of young people with a degree to 40 per cent by 2020. This target has been met, but it is now up to us, this generation, to ensure that the secondary target—that 20 per cent of people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including First Nations people, receive a higher education—is also achieved.</para>
<para>We don't support higher education just for the sake of it. Higher education leads to better-paying jobs and entryways into corporate and public leadership. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has reported that having qualifications relevant to a person's current job makes a significant difference to people's rates of underemployment. People who have not attained higher education are twice to be underemployed as those with a relevant qualification. They are also more likely to have lower weekly personal incomes than those with qualifications relevant to their jobs.</para>
<para>The Albanese government's Future Made in Australia Skills Plan, which we took to the 2022 federal election, will see up to 20,000 new university places delivered across Australia, mainly in the regions. In doing so, this government is tackling areas of skill shortage and securing future skills needs by training Australian students in jobs including engineering, nursing, tech and teaching. It's a plan that encapsulates the needs of today with the needs of tomorrow and ensures that Australia is on a strong footing for a productive and needs based workforce.</para>
<para>Of course, in providing this investment to universities and this focus on research, we are not leaving TAFE behind. The university places measure is part of the Australian government's $1.2 billion investment under the skills plan, of which the funding will also provide more than 465,000 free TAFE places, including 45,000 new places, particularly in areas of critical skill shortage. This will help to rebuild the industries hit hardest by COVID and meet future needs for multiple industries, including aged care, child care and nursing.</para>
<para>In stark contrast to the Labor Party's proud history in supporting and advocating for higher education, those opposite, I'm sorry to say, leave a history of deriding universities, of demeaning graduates and of dismissing the vital role that higher education plays in our society. Deputy Speaker, we all remember the Abbott government wanted young people in my electorate and yours, and everybody else's, to pay more than $100,000 for a university education. In the last parliament, they jacked up the price of many, many courses. The Liberals' continual attempted Americanisation of Australia's higher education sector has led to more debt for students, less job security for academics and a hollowed-out experience of university life.</para>
<para>In 2020, the Morrison government refused to offer support to the higher education sector during the COVID-19 pandemic by not expanding JobSeeker to include university staff. It was a terrible decision. As a result, the university sector was hit hard, particularly the people in it, and more than 17,000 people lost their jobs; 17,000 people whose jobs were teaching young people were given nothing by way of support—just a terrible, terrible waste. That's 13 per cent of Australia's pre-COVID university workforce. And now, of course, we want them back, and what a job it is getting them back into those jobs.</para>
<para>At the time, the president of the National Tertiary Education Union, Dr Alison Barnes, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The parents of Australia should be frankly really alarmed. You have got these figures of job losses coupled with the incredible reductions of courses, and that harms future generations of Australia. It harms anybody who is a school leaver, or who wants to retrain if they lose their job.</para></quote>
<para>Despite those alarm bells and warnings from the sector, the former government never strayed from their agenda of taking a wrecking ball to higher education. They have an appalling history on higher education, for both universities and TAFE, not more towards the culture of higher education and what it can bring, what it means to have a higher education.</para>
<para>Before us today is a bill that will ensure the future capability and capacity of the university sector so that it can be realised in full. It will provide much-needed funding support that will commercialise research and ensure the future of higher education, innovation and research is upheld and entrenched in government policy. I go to the minister's second reading speech and note, very importantly, that 'funding will be targeted at projects which align with the priority areas identified in the government's National Reconstruction Fund'. I couldn't believe it when I read that those opposite are actually going to oppose this government's National Reconstruction Fund. It was a major plank of our election commitment. There's no surprise that we were going to do it. It's just unbelievable, frankly, that those opposite are opposing a national reconstruction fund that is going to do so much for our economy and our manufacturing sector.</para>
<para>My friend and colleague the Minister for Industry and Science introduced legislation to enable the establishment of a $15 billion fund, and he's described it as one of the largest peacetime investments in our country's manufacturing capability. If we are going to be serious about jobs and manufacturing in this country, we've got to get serious about this National Reconstruction Fund. I urge those opposite: rethink your position and get with the program.</para>
<para>The projects under the AEA program, which falls under this bill, will align with the priority areas of the National Reconstruction Fund. Things that will be included are value adding in resources, value adding in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, transport, medical science, renewables and low-emission technologies, defence capabilities and enabling capabilities across sectors like fintech, robotics, AI and quantum technologies.</para>
<para>I have no doubt that in the months and years ahead we're going to have members of the opposition getting up to say, 'Why isn't the government doing something about resources?' or 'Why isn't the government doing something about agriculture?' or 'Why isn't the government doing something about forestry and fisheries?' It's all here, a $15 billion fund to rebuild these industries, to rebuild manufacturing and capability in this country. Yet the Liberal and National parties are opposing it. I just cannot believe it. It must be politics that's driving their opposition, and frankly I don't even see the politics in it other than just opposing for opposition's sake. I urge those opposite to rethink their opposition to the National Reconstruction Fund. It's a great policy for the country going forward and for our economy.</para>
<para>I said at the beginning of the speech that we are currently ranked fifth in the world for our human capital and research, and that's a great outcome for a middle-tier country globally. But we lag badly behind, at 37th in the world for knowledge and technology outputs. Frankly, you can see why that's happened after a decade in which higher education and research were put on the backburner by the former government. This bill will ensure that we are able to bridge this gap and drive up our nation's capability to where it should be. Australia has been before and should be now a world leader in knowledge and technology outputs in the higher education sector, and the passage of this legislation will help us to do just that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEVENS</name>
    <name.id>176304</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022. As has already been indicated by many of my coalition colleagues, we support this bill. It essentially implements coalition policy announced early last year by the former Prime Minister and built into the former Treasurer's budget. I'm particularly excited by the opportunity that this will have for a number of CRCs that I have been heavily associated with in my home state of South Australia because this legislation creates the Economic Accelerator Fund, which will create a range of commercialisation opportunities for the universities and their partners in a number of R and D initiatives.</para>
<para>Just before I was elected in 2019, it was a thrill to be at the announcement of SmartSat CRC, with the University of South Australia being the leading proponent of the CRC with its many industry partners in the satellite sector. This CRC was chosen to be a successful recipient of funding and since then has been doing amazing work in the smart satellite area. This bill will give them access to the Economic Accelerator for potential commercialisation projects through the partnerships that they have in the CRC. Since I was elected I've worked very closely with the University of Adelaide, my alma mater. They put forward a very compelling bid for the HILT CRC, the Heavy Industry Low-emission Technology Collaborative Research Centre. This CRC is all about finding ways to solve the significant challenges of intensive carbon emissions from heavy industry. These challenges are in steel production, cement, aluminium and the various industrial processes that, in some cases, we are yet to commercially solve in their attempt to become carbon neutral, carbon zero. That HILT CRC, led by the University of Adelaide and with an enormous number of industry partners, was successfully selected and funded. It is now absolutely in existence, and I hope and anticipate that the accelerator fund will provide opportunities for the commercialisation of concepts that potentially come out of that alliance.</para>
<para>The third one is the defence industry Trailblazer Universities Program, which Adelaide university, again, was successful in. We announced that last March-April, just before the caretaker period. The trailblazers program is inextricably connected to the economic accelerator concept; they're within the same overarching policy framework. The trailblazers program has been a competitive process across the six disciplines within the manufacturing strategic priorities. Adelaide university went in on the defence play and was successful in being selected.</para>
<para>This opens up enormous opportunities, particularly in my home state of South Australia, both because the University of Adelaide is based there and because we are the defence state. We have an enormous, deep defence industry capability within our economy. We also have the very significant commitments that the previous government made around defence acquisition, particularly in maritime, but there is a whole lot more than just shipbuilding happening in the South Australian defence sector, across land and air. Of course, we also have the Australian Space Agency, the headquarters of which the previous government decided to locate in South Australia. We are the home of defence industry and the home of space, with the SmartSat CRC at UniSA, as well. We are leveraging enormous opportunity in those sectors, which are only going to grow dramatically into the future.</para>
<para>The previous speaker talked about the priorities within the National Reconstruction Fund. The really frightening thing is that the space sector has been removed as one of the six priorities. That is absolutely inexplicable. Space, as a standalone opportunity, will be one of the great future growth industries across any significant economic metric—jobs created, investment attracted, innovation and the spin-offs from the space sector, space itself and space technology and what it can do for so many other industries, particularly traditional industries like agriculture, as an example. Earth observation from space can have huge applications in the agricultural sector. To take space away as one of the six priorities for the government's future manufacturing focus is inexplicable, really disappointing and a complete own goal. On most metrics, space should be and could be—and may not be now, thanks to that decision—the fastest-emerging growth sector in our economy, faster than any of the others. This is madness, but it's up to the government, in another debate, to explain why they've gone down that path.</para>
<para>The defence sector is not just about what it is but what it can be. One of the really important things, which was a real focus of our government previously, is the development of sovereign capability. We've always spent a significant amount of money on defence and defence acquisition, but for way too many decades the vast majority of that acquisition spend was on imported defence capability, rather than domestically constructed capability and—more importantly—not just piecing things together within our economy but actually having the sovereign capability to design, construct and hold the intellectual property for defence requirements here within our nation, which is good for our economy but also very important for our national security. We had defence industry sovereign capability as a focus, and that's why I was very excited when the University of Adelaide was selected to be a trailblazer in defence. Coupled with the economic accelerator program, that means that Adelaide university now has the partnerships. They're working with the University of New South Wales as well, I hasten to add. It is, of course, a very significant institution in defence; it operates the Australian Defence Force Academy here in Canberra, amongst its other defence related activity.</para>
<para>Adelaide university is the lead proponent, working with all of their very significant industry partners. That means that, through Trailblazer, they can be undertaking the research and development and capability development and focus. Then, through the Economic Accelerator, they can apply to this program, and this program will provide them with certainty, because of its ongoing nature, which is embedded within the legislation. They will have the capacity to identify and pursue, and, I'm very confident, on a regular basis, secure successful applications to this program. That will mean that—on top of what we're already doing in the defence sector in South Australia, and the things that we're already planning on building locally and the capability that is already known about in my home state—there will be new development and new innovation that we can commercialise for future economic opportunity, beyond what we already intend to do in South Australia and Australia into the future.</para>
<para>We know, of course, that, through the landmark AUKUS agreement, we are entering an unprecedented period of technological collaboration and cooperation with the United States and the United Kingdom—two very sophisticated defence industry and technology economies. Particularly in the case of the United States, it is, understandably, very, very rare for it to partner with non-internal academic and industry partners—those not within the sovereign borders of the United States. One of the regular challenges with defence acquisition is getting the approval to access technology that we might want from the United States government, and AUKUS provides a framework to make that much more expedited, on a regular basis.</para>
<para>There's a specific commitment within it, as we know, to nuclear technology propulsion for submarines. There are a lot of other opportunities within that.</para>
<para>I'll come back now to the Economic Accelerator fund. Adelaide university and their partners, through accessing this fund, will be able to look at partnership opportunities that might be facilitated within AUKUS. They'll be looking for opportunities to develop capability that could have significant opportunities, both economically and from a defence capability point of view, for our own needs and for the needs of significant ally markets like the United States and the United Kingdom, and of course well beyond that.</para>
<para>And that's what this fund will do. It will help us dramatically address one of the really heartbreaking issues in our history of research and development: that of not having, consistently enough, the C—the commercialisation—on the end of the R&D. There have been a lot of great ideas coming from our research institutions where we haven't had the best framework, of not just government but also, frankly, private sector financing of the commercialisation of good ideas that mean that great Australian IP can be turned into great Australian business opportunities that are attracting investment and employing people within our economy.</para>
<para>Whether it's in defence or in the HILT and/or space sectors that I mentioned—those two CRCs—in South Australia, all of our institutions will have opportunities to access this funding, working across all of the significant industries in South Australia—traditional industries, like agriculture and mining, and the great emerging exciting industries, like space, and everything in between. There are really smart people in these institutions and companies who are working in these sectors and have the capability to work on ideas and develop opportunities for businesses. Now, through this fund, they will have a very clear and certain pathway to seek and apply for staged funding that will help them germinate those ideas into really significant commercial opportunities, that, we hope, on a regular basis, will turn into great businesses that are employing people and generating activity in our economy.</para>
<para>So, for those reasons, the coalition—myself included—are very pleased to see the government bring forward our bill and continue with the proposals that we put forward when Prime Minister Morrison announced this last February, in February 2022. So, a year later, we have this bill progressing through the parliament. I'm pleased to support it and I'm excited about the opportunities that it will provide for the Australian economy and, particularly, the very impressive research and development community that we have.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MILLER-FROST</name>
    <name.id>296272</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am very honoured to represent the wonderful, dynamic electorate of Boothby. It is a fantastic place to live for so many reasons. It has wonderful landscapes, it has wonderful industry, it has world-class education, and it has families and a community that are thriving. It also has two world-class universities and a fantastic TAFE. What Boothby is increasingly becoming known for is its advanced innovative industry that is thriving in the heart of the electorate that I represent, and this government knows that; it is why the minister introduced this bill. We want to do everything in our power to make it easier for universities and for industry to translate their cutting-edge research into practical and commercial applications.</para>
<para>As the minister said in introducing this bill, research commercialisation is important. It is important because it means that, as Australians, we get a bigger dividend for our investment in research in this country. That investment powers new technologies that we can develop here in Australia, and I say in Boothby, that can improve production processes, reduce costs, create new products that lead to even greater economic activity and, of course, create secure, well-paid jobs.</para>
<para>As I said, in Boothby we are very fortunate to have two world-class universities. We have the world-renowned Waite Research Institute, which is part of Adelaide University. But I'm going to focus Flinders because of its role at the Tonsley Innovation District. Flinders University has almost 26,000 students, about 7,000 people undertaking PhDs and about 900 academic staff, so that is a lot of very smart people out there not only learning but also creating new information. Flinders has a second site at Tonsley, at the old Mitsubishi site—an old car manufacturer closed down—and Flinders is a key player there.</para>
<para>In Boothby, researchers and industry have already begun to establish partnerships and connections, like the Factory of the Future at Tonsley. During the election campaign, I was thrilled to visit Tonsley to announce a $10 million investment in the Factory of the Future. It is a prime example of using cutting-edge research to work towards important national priorities. The pilot Factory of the Future already in operation at Tonsley is a powerhouse for developing effective collaborations between researchers and industry in South Australia.</para>
<para>Labor governments at federal and state level have worked hard to make sure there are now more people working in the Tonsley Innovation District than there were when Mitsubishi was still making cars there. We want to turbo charge jobs in the state through the establishment of Australia's first industrial-scale advanced manufacturing accelerator facility at Tonsley. Tonsley is also home to many high-tech businesses such as BAE, Tesla, Sage, Red Arc, Micro X and many more. It is a fantastic petri dish of high-tech innovation, with Flinders University right in the middle of it. The new facilities, which include a manufacturing growth accelerator program, will support over 120 small and medium enterprises to test and trial state-of-the-art equipment and skills for potential early adoption, with the opportunity to feed into the supply chain for the growing defence industry in South Australia. Side-by-side with this is the world-class education and training and the use of advanced digital technologies, ensuring we have the workforce we need to be a manufacturing superpower. This will be a model for other states wanting to be at the centre of the advanced manufacturing revolution, and it's the sort of thing that changes brought about by this bill are designed to drive.</para>
<para>This bill does two things. First, it amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement measures as part of the former government's university research commercialisation action plan. It takes what was a good idea and puts it into action. Second, the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to provide legislative authority to establish an Australian Economic Accelerator program. This program—I'll call it the AEA program—is specifically designed to assist higher education providers in developing research to a level of commercial readiness and to support industry led study and postgraduate research programs. Specifically, the AEA program is being established to assist higher education providers to progress the development of new technologies and services to the commercialisation and investor-ready stage through grants.</para>
<para>The bill also provides for a governance framework, including the AEA advisory board and priority managers, to create a research commercialisation strategy and advise the minister on grants. The program will focus on priorities established under the government's National Reconstruction Fund, legislation for which is being established this week. We've already heard that the opposition is going to oppose that.</para>
<para>The purpose of this bill dovetails with that of the National Reconstruction Fund: to make Australia a place where we make things again, a place where we lead the world in advanced technologies—technologies and innovations that drive economic growth and deliver well-paid, secure jobs. The fund and measures like those introduced in this bill which power it will drive investment in projects which will be our collective prosperity. They will broaden our industrial base and boost regional economic development.</para>
<para>Crucially, this bill also allows for the creation of a National Industry PhD Program. The program will provide a basis for new industry led postgraduate programs that create a clear and structured career pathway in innovation and commercialisation focused research. The programs will embed researchers in industry settings, allowing them to build the all-important connections and networks needed to translate their research into commercial and practical solutions. I'm very excited that the internationally recognised Tonsley Innovation District, with Flinders University as the major hub, is fantastically positioned to take advantage of this, with so many exciting, high-tech businesses on their doorstep.</para>
<para>Ultimately, this bill will make it easier for universities and businesses to work together to commercialise the important research that they undertake. It will help us build our sovereign capability and it will boost our economy for the future. I commend the bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STEGGALL</name>
    <name.id>175696</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the government's Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022. I've previously called for urgent measures to accelerate innovation in Australia, and I believe this bill is a good step in achieving this. I welcome the government's renewed focus on science innovation and creative entrepreneurialism as we seek to strengthen our long-term economic future.</para>
<para>Australia has a rich history of innovation that we really should be proud of. The black box flight recorder, the cochlear implant, the ultrasound scanner, wi-fi—all of these are Australian inventions that have changed the world. Right now, we have an important opportunity to invest in the education of our younger generations, whose ideas and innovations are a major key to ensuring Australia's future in the knowledge and technology spaces. Despite our successes, Australia sits well below where we could be on international rankings of knowledge and technology output. We can do better. That means we must accelerate the talent and ideas of our next generation of innovators. We cannot be content with peaking in the past. Targeted funding through university research grant programs and new incentives for tertiary education providers are welcome steps to enhance opportunities for our next generation of innovators.</para>
<para>More robustly funded research programs mean better equipped graduates. I believe this bill will help propel investment in innovation, which will make Australia more competitive. I'm pleased to see that major interest groups are generally supportive of the additional funding announced as part of the plan. Professor John Shine, President of the Australian Academy of Science, stated that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian universities must be supported to operate across the continuum of basic to applied research and both academics and industry must be incentivised to translate ideas into commercial outcomes.</para></quote>
<para>I concur with Professor Shine. The government has a vital role to play in bridging education with industry.</para>
<para>Whilst this bill is good, I don't believe it's perfect. There are risks, and I do note some concerns regarding some of the plan's policy features. It's imperative that this investment pay off. Australia's Economic Accelerator program needs to bridge education with industry; however, the bill only appears to legislate on one side of the bridge. I feel there is an important opportunity to incentivise industry to engage equitably with the tertiary education sector, should this be needed to further strengthen the Economic Accelerator program.</para>
<para>We also need more incentives to translate research and innovation into start-up businesses and new businesses. Australia only invests some 1.8 per cent of GDP into innovation and research and development. That's just not enough to be competitive in today's world. We need more incentives when it comes to R&D for existing companies to make sure they continually reinvest in their efficiencies and their sustainability and, ultimately, to ensure that they are competitive with the rest of the world.</para>
<para>The Australian Academy of Science also calls for greater detail on the cross-portfolio coordination of this bill. There are over 200 existing research support schemes and programs currently on offer in Australia. I believe that we need a cohesive and consistent approach to research funding, which should be implemented nationally. I feel it's unclear how the new scheme will be integrated alongside the existing programs.</para>
<para>In 2020, funding for basic and applied research and experimental development was concentrated in particular areas such as biomedical and clinical sciences, engineering, health science and biological sciences. All other fields received less than seven per cent of total investment each. That is a really disproportionate allocation of funding. I note that the establishment of an authority—of the Australia's Economic Accelerator advisory board—should, hopefully, ensure more equitable spread of that research funding across key industries.</para>
<para>Whilst this bill gives the minister significant powers to streamline targeted research grants funding to certain courses, I welcome the measured approach of an advisory board and hope the expertise of the appointed group will enhance decision-making that is based on experience and expert insight. I urge the minister to prioritise experience and knowledge in research and commercialisation when considering the appointments to the board.</para>
<para>Whilst the AEA advisory board will advise on which industries are in greatest need for research grants under the program, it's my sincere hope that clean energy and renewable technology industries will benefit from targeted research funding. I firmly believe this is an incredibly vital space for our long-term economic strength and growth. Investment in our transition to renewables and our legislated pursuit of net zero should be accelerated at every opportunity across every sector and every portfolio.</para>
<para>I welcome measured and appropriate reform of existing funding and reward structures in Australian universities and tertiary education providers. Whilst this bill is a strong step towards bridging tertiary education with in-demand industry, it needs to pay off long term, so I hope the government is open to further incentivising industry in the future. I also ask the government to acknowledge the opportunity to direct research funding towards a clean energy economic future. I welcome the increased focus on commercialised research to equip and propel our next generation of innovators into the knowledge and technology space, and I'm excited to see how Australians continue our rich history of innovation.</para>
<para>Finally, while talking about education, I must thank all the educators and schools in Warringah for the wonderful work that they do in nurturing those very smart brains keen for information, in particular in STEM subjects. I'd also like to recognise the amazing leaders that have participated in my electorate of Warringah—the youth ambassadors who for the last four years have participated each year in bringing to me their knowledge, their hope, their feedback, their concerns and anxiety about our future, and their questions about what opportunities they have and what support they will get in careers of choice or innovation and about their tertiary education pathways or TAFE or professional opportunities. My youth ambassadors are the school captains of all the schools in Warringah, and they are such an incredibly motivating bunch. These young people are just so smart and bright. They are caring, and they have an incredible focus on the challenges and opportunities of tomorrow. They want to know more about innovation and tertiary education opportunities, and they want accountability in this place, where we are legislating and really directing what their opportunities are going to be as they grow up. Thank you to them and to the current class, of 2023. I commend this bill to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MASCARENHAS</name>
    <name.id>298800</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Australia is a smart nation. From polymer bank notes to our role in creating wi-fi, we are a nation of innovators. In my electorate of Swan we have some incredible innovators. The International Day of Women and Girls in Science is on Monday, and in an earlier speech in this place I highlighted some impressive female innovators in Swan, including Dr Shani Higginbottom at Alcoa, who is maximising bauxite recovery. There's Dr Irene Suarez-Martinez and her work as a material scientist but also as a textile artist. We have Dr Natasha Hurley-Walker and her work in the Murchison Widefield Array; Dr Gemma Anderson, who monitors black holes and supernovas; and Dr Lucy Commander, who is known for her outstanding work in seed germination.</para>
<para>There are more impressive women in Swan. There's Lyndsey Teng, a civil engineer who has worked on various rail projects across Western Australia, and Hannah Green, from ChemCentre, who won the Ian Ritchie Achievement Award. Her team works with the WA Police Force to identify chemicals seized in drug labs.</para>
<para>Innovation is in the DNA of Australians, and this is something that we see at the forefront of universities. For me, as one of the few members lucky enough to have a university in their electorate, it's a pleasure to have Curtin University. Curtin has been making strides in commercialising research. For example, Curtin has a cathode-manufacturing pilot plant. This is an example of taking an ingenious home-grown idea, on battery manufacturing, and then turning it into a pilot plant to test the commercialisation. This could become the foundation of a future battery-manufacturing capability in Australia.</para>
<para>We can do innovation here, but there's an issue with commercialisation of research and development. Many people have heard about the valley of death. It's the place between the laboratory bench and the marketplace where countless good ideas go to die. Australia can be at the forefront of innovation and commercialisation, and the Albanese Labor government wants this nation to be a country that both innovates in research and development and also ensures that we commercialise these ideas to keep them here in Australia.</para>
<para>This bill, the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, fits into the government's University Research Commercialisation Action Plan. The bill will allow the minister to make grants to support arrangements to increase industry-led postgraduate research and assist higher education providers to undertake programs of research that will progress the development of technologies and services to a state of commercial investor readiness and that are in sectors aligned with the nation's priorities. This bill provides researchers with the support and funding to bridge the gap between the laboratory bench and the marketplace. Curtin University will benefit from this additional funding support for researchers.</para>
<para>This bill complements the first major policy package to support manufacturing in Australia. This is the biggest one in living memory: the National Reconstruction Fund. Although this bill's measures are smaller in scope and impact than the Albanese Labor government's National Reconstruction Fund plan, it aligns with our priorities to see industry supported by government in cooperation with researchers, universities and workers.</para>
<para>It was disappointing to hear that the opposition is choosing to not support the National Reconstruction Fund, because the parents I speak to in my electorate of Swan would like to see their children obtain future jobs that are well paid and secure. A friend told me a story about his aunty, who was born fully deaf and worked for nearly a decade upholstering car seats in Melbourne at one of the car manufacturers. It was a good, well-paid blue-collar job that gave her a sense of dignity in her work and a sense of belonging. Supporting Australian manufacturing industry is as much about the dollars and cents as it is about creating opportunities for people and developing a sense of dignity in the work that they do.</para>
<para>I support this bill because I see the bigger picture. By supporting researchers and turning their work into something commercially viable we are increasing the sustainability of the research sector. A healthy and sustainable research sector means more jobs for all people, including women in STEM, which is a priority for this government. This support will also mean greater innovation in industry and more things can be invented in Australia and made here. And, if we're making it in Australia, it will mean good, secure, well-playing jobs for our communities.</para>
<para>Curtin University will be instrumental to this process, and to quote Vice-Chancellor Harlene Hayne:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Curtin University has a leading role to play in helping Australia become a smarter and more innovative country, that leads the world not just in research but in making the most of the commercial opportunities that come from that research.</para></quote>
<para>And, as the saying goes, if there's a will there's a way. In my community there is a willingness among the leadership team and staff at Curtin to be a partner of the federal government in this process. My hope for this legislation is that further commercialised research and industry collaboration at Curtin University will see an ecosystem of innovation that expands job opportunities for my community and adds value to the Western Australian industries.</para>
<para>Our government has brought this bill before the House so soon after our election because of our hopes for the sector and the broader economy. It complements our plans for a national reconstruction fund and aligns with Labor's aspiration to support a world-class research sector. Our decisive action is about giving stakeholders certainty and putting confidence back in the economy.</para>
<para>I am fortunate to have a university in my electorate named after the great Labor man John Curtin because it was a Curtin Labor government that was the last government to pursue such an expansive investment in manufacturing, as we're doing through the National Reconstruction Fund. His vision for Australia's economy after the Second World War was one of full employment, harnessing Australia's ingenuity and establishing our sovereign manufacturing capability. So successful was John Curtin's vision that it became upheld policy of both parties until the 1970s. That vision is something we share, and we would also like to see jobs available for every Australian who wants one.</para>
<para>We would like to have a sense of pride in our nation's products by expanding the presence of the made-in-Australia tag at home and abroad and just when we want to build our sovereign capability and protect our communities during times of crises, such as we saw during the COVID pandemic. And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I see this bill, created by the previous government, as to be one that should be commended to the House. And although it's smaller in scope compared to other policies of the Curtin or Albanese Labor government, it is a step forward in the advance of our capacity as a nation.</para>
<para>I'd like to conclude by saying that Australia is a smart nation. We are hardworking, intelligent and innovative. I support this bill because my community knows that if we are to diversify our economy we need to support our researchers and universities. I support this because I know that Curtin University, in the heart of Swan, will be supported in commercialising their research. I support this bill because an innovative, commercially viable research sector will be critical in supporting the Albanese Labor government's National Reconstruction Fund. Finally, I support this bill because I believe if we invent it here we should make it here.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VIOLI</name>
    <name.id>300147</name.id>
    <electorate>Casey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I also rise to support this bill that reintroduces measures introduced by the former coalition government which lapsed at the election and have now been taken up by Labor. It's wonderful to see that bipartisan support on this bill, because it's a bill to amend the Higher Education Support Act to allow the minister to make grants for industry-led postgraduate research. This bill is crucial to assist with the growth of the digital economy. The digital economy is a valuable industry in Australia that creates many high-paid jobs while also driving productivity to many businesses and the economy. It's been estimated that it can deliver $315 billion in gross economic value to our country.</para>
<para>Innovation is vital to continuing the growth of the digital economy. However, it faces funding challenges, especially at the incubation or startup stage. This is a crucial stage in these projects, because many of the projects are risky, and it's a challenge for business to invest capital because there's no guarantee of a return on investment. That's where academic research and universities are so important. The grants will assist higher education providers to undertake research programs which progress the development of technologies and services to a state of commercial investor readiness in areas that align with our national priorities.</para>
<para>When in government, the coalition led a significant piece of work to review investment in research, looking to drive greater benefits for our economy. We have many universities across Australia where students and academics produce foundational work and research. We're up there with the best in the world. The 2022 World Intellectual Property Organization's Global Innovation Index ranked Australia fifth in the world for our human capital and research. Research translation and commercialisation is important. It means we get a bigger return on investment for research conducted in our universities. The previous coalition government found that, while we publish more than 100,000 academic papers, we don't do a lot with that research beyond the exploration stage. On that same global index, we ranked 37th for knowledge and technology outputs. This means that we are not realising the full potential of our university research by seeing it through to commercialisation and seeing our country, the economy and communities benefit. The previous coalition government saw the great potential for our nation in taking university research and giving it a tangible purpose.</para>
<para>Research papers are great and important, but what our country needs is real action that is going to boost our economy and find solutions for the significant challenges that we are facing. Like it has been through history, technology and innovation will be a key driver in helping us as a nation find solutions to these challenges. The coalition did the groundwork to ensure more research is translated into commercial applications, knowing it would meet some of our greatest challenges and pave the way for an improved economy. We did this by investing $2.2 billion into our University Research Commercialisation Package, to highlight Australia's incredible research minds while also boosting our productivity and creating new jobs and new industries. This placed national manufacturing priorities at the core of Australian government funded research and invested in people who were skilled in university-industry collaboration.</para>
<para>The former government invested a further $243 million over five years for the Trailblazer Universities Program to drive commercialisation outcomes with industry. The Trailblazer program was all about delivering research that would support our national manufacturing priorities, which were medical products; food and beverage; recycling and clean energy; resource technology and critical mineral processing; defence industry; and space. These priorities were crucial. As I used to say to my team in the business world, 'If everything matters, nothing matters.' It's so important, with endless opportunities, that you really prioritise what you're going to focus on, whether it's in business or in government. So to have these six priorities really underpinned the programs and the success and opportunities of these programs.</para>
<para>In addition to all these investments, the previous government also invested $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator—a funding program to help universities with the process of commercialising research. It is this accelerator program that is at the heart of this bill. The Economic Accelerator program is all about supporting research translation and commercialisation within our universities.</para>
<para>It's also important to understand and recognise that these investments in research and development are not just about economic benefits. While these are important and crucial, it's also about the social benefit to individuals, to families and to communities. Think for a second and imagine a world without the cervical cancer vaccine that was created by Professor Ian Frazer in 2006. Imagine a world without the bionic ear, which was created by Graeme Clark at the University of Melbourne. I don't think there is anyone the world over who would argue that those two products, as two examples, are not providing multiple benefits to our society. And that's what technology and innovation can do: deliver economic growth, but also deliver social benefits to our society.</para>
<para>The technological advancements that can be unlocked from university research is, in many ways, beyond our imagination, and that is the real excitement and opportunity afforded by technology. What products will we be talking about in 10 years? None of us in this room or in this house will have even comprehended that. As an example, Professor Michelle Simmons and her team at the University of New South Wales developed the world's first single-atom transistor, a basic data unit in quantum computers back in 2012. This was a huge step in the race to engineer substantially faster, more efficient computers.</para>
<para>These are just a few examples of why it is important to help bridge the gap that I spoke about around research and commercialisation. It's no secret that technology opens new doors and creates new industries. And innovation in technology is the key to increased productivity, which the RBA has said will lead to lower costs, higher profits, and a stronger economy. We have all spoken a lot this week, in particular in this House, about the challenges of cost of living and inflation, and technology will play a key role, in the short term and in the long term, to allow businesses to unlock some of those.</para>
<para>In my first speech, one thing I spoke about was productivity and technology. I referenced farmers and the agricultural benefits of technology, because agriculture is a big part of my community. I also talked about how tradies and builders can spend more time on the tools, which they love, and more time at home with their families because technology allows them to do their admin and invoicing quickly so that they could do that.</para>
<para>I do note that my good friend the member for Flinders is in the room, which is great to see, because just this week Master Builders Australia told us that the seat of Casey is No. 1 in the country for tradies as a percentage of their workforce. So when I spoke about that, I knew that our electorate would be great. And it is great to have the member for Flinders here because the seat of Flinders is No. 2 on that list. Whether it's the amazing wineries in the Yarra Valley, which we also beat the seat of Flinders in, or the number of tradies, it's great to see that Casey is leading the way with tradies. But that's why I spoke about the benefits, because there are so many small businesses, sole traders that can benefit in Casey and Flinders, and across the country, from products that we don't even know exist yet that will come out of programs like this.</para>
<para>To support the new grant opportunities the bill also establishes a new board, the Economic Accelerator advisory board, which is crucial. The board will have eight representatives from government, industry, business and research sectors. It is so important that the board has that breadth of experience because they will be making these crucial decisions. And projects under the Australia's Economic Accelerator program will align with priority areas, which include enabling capabilities in AI, quantum and robotic technology, which is so crucial to our future. We've seen it recently with the introduction of ChatGPT and what can be unleashed in the future with that.</para>
<para>It's often difficult for businesses to invest in technology, so this seed funding through grants from the government is crucial to future economic growth. This is one area where government intervention is required to help businesses innovate and increase productivity. Industry-led programs will create clear and structured pathways, and at the end of the day it is industry, researchers, people, our economy and our communities that will benefit.</para>
<para>Our country desperately needs to improve its economy, particularly by making the most of advancements in technology, in this time of high inflation and low economic growth. It is so important that we help bridge that gap between research and industry so our country can reap the rewards of our own research. It's time we stopped wasting research in academic journals. Instead we should be doing all we can to support the commercialisation of Australian research in order to drive economic growth. That's what this bill aims to achieve, and that's why we are supporting it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McKENZIE</name>
    <name.id>124514</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the Higher Education Support Amendment (Australia's Economic Accelerator) Bill 2022, but before I get too into too much detail about the bill I would just like to correct the statements made by the former speaker, the member for Casey. It is true that this year—and this year alone, I expect—the seat of Casey will hold the record for the largest number of tradies. May I say I've been inundated with comments from my electorate suggesting that, if we included landscape gardeners and other trades, we would definitively be the winner. So enjoy it while you have it, Member for Casey. It will not last.</para>
<para>I am pleased to speak in support of this bill to deliver the Australia's Economic Accelerator program, which was indeed introduced by the previous coalition government in February of last year as part of their $2.2 billion University Research Commercialisation Action Plan. Our universities undertake incredibly important and high-quality work in research. As we have heard, the World Intellectual Property Organization's 2022 Global Innovation Index placed Australia fifth in the world for human capital and research. However, on the same Global Innovation Index, we ranked 37th for knowledge and technology outputs. This disparity means that, whilst Australia is proudly recognised as a research powerhouse, much of our early-stage research is frequently not progressed to later stages of development, because of the risk and uncertainty around commercial returns.</para>
<para>The Australia's Economic Accelerator program seeks to bridge this disparity, bringing our output of knowledge and technology in line with the expertise of our research. The AEA program will create a research ecosystem where our world-class research is translated into real-world innovations and productivity gains. This program will operate as a priority driven grant program to support projects aligned with national research priorities and with high commercial opportunity.</para>
<para>To that end, I do wish that the Albanese government maintained this desire to support national research priorities locally by not scrapping funding for projects such as the National Centre for Coasts and Climate at Point Nepean National Park in my electorate of Flinders. This would have been our only higher education footprint in the electorate of Flinders, bringing world-class researchers in coasts and climate to the Mornington Peninsula to undertake their work, in partnership with the University of Melbourne and Monash University. But I digress.</para>
<para>Funding will be available to universities and will require applicants to partner with industry. Grants of between $20,000 and $500,000 are available to fund eligible activity, with matched funding requirements determined on a case-by-case basis. Without government intervention, new innovations and technologies will continue to stall. But the coalition has a proud history in addressing this issue. In 2014, the coalition released the 'Boosting the commercial returns from research' discussion paper, as part of its Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda. This paper cited insufficient knowledge transfer between researchers and business as a key driver of a lack of research commercialisation, arguing that addressing this issue would 'help drive innovation in Australia, grow successful Australian businesses, and boost productivity and Australia's exports, ensuring the competitiveness of the Australian economy into the future'. In 2015, the coalition commissioned the Watt review, which recommended actions similar to those recommended in the 'Boosting the commercial returns from research' paper. In December 2015 the $1.1 billion National Innovation and Science Agenda was launched. For universities, this agenda built on the BCRR paper and the Watt review and included changes to research funding arrangements for all universities.</para>
<para>During the unstable and unpredictable period of 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the coalition maintained its focus on research collaboration and commercialisation, introducing a one-off increase to research support program funding. In February 2022 the former coalition government announced a university research commercialisation action plan. My dear friend and indeed the chair of the expert panel which provided input into the $5.8 million scoping project to accelerate university research translation, Mr Jeff Connolly, said that significant reforms were needed to improve Australia's commercialisation woes. At the time, Mr Connolly said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It was very quickly apparent that a single program was not the solution to this issue and that a more strategic and systemic approach was required. The result is the broad-ranging reforms outlined in this Action Plan.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">…   …   …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This Action Plan commits the Australian Government to shifting the dial to place more emphasis on the translation and commercialisation of research.</para></quote>
<para>That plan outlined key initiatives to reform Australia's research commercialisation landscape across four key areas: placing national manufacturing priorities at the core of Australian government funded research; priority-driven schemes to ramp up commercialisation activity; university research funding reform to strengthen incentives for genuine collaboration with industry; and investing in people who are skilled in university-industry collaboration.</para>
<para>The mechanisms to drive these reforms would be: $243 million over five years for the Trailblazer Universities Program to boost prioritised R&D and drive commercialisation outcomes with industry partners; $1.6 billion over 10 years for Australia's Economic Accelerator, a new stage-gated competitive funding program to help university projects bridge the so-called valley of death and the road to commercialisation; and a $150 million capital injection to expand the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program, which backs startup companies and helps create commercial opportunities from Australian research. There would be $296 million to be invested in 1,800 industry PhDs and over 800 in fellows over 10 years. And the creation of a new IP framework for universities would support greater university-industry collaboration and the uptake of research outputs.</para>
<para>This plan was widely supported at the time by stakeholders including the Business Council, Universities Australia, Group of Eight, the IRU, the ATN and Mining Australia. Ensuring that our university and higher education providers' research is better translated into commercial opportunities is critically important going forward, and I am pleased that this government is continuing the work of the previous government on this matter.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Eight months in, and I'm glad to see that the Labor Party are still running with the previous coalition government's policies—and why wouldn't they? The coalition delivered record funding and historic reform to higher education and further education. In government, we undertook a significant piece of work to review the government's investment in research to drive greater benefits for our economy. What we discovered was, whilst we undertook world-leading research and published more than 100,000 academic papers, as a nation we often don't do a lot with that research beyond the initial exploration. So, when in government, we consulted industry, we came up with a plan and we took action, because that's what Australians expect of their governments.</para>
<para>Our $2.2 billion University Research Commercialisation Package was—and, as turns out, remains—focused on boosting Australia's economy and our productivity. We wanted to see those core manufacturing priorities backed by quality university research, in addition to the $1½ billion we invested through the Modern Manufacturing program. These priority areas were those we had identified as areas where Australia had significant comparative advantage and a strategic national interest. Those areas were (1) medical products, (2) food and beverage, (3) recycling and clean energy, (4) resources technology and critical minerals processing, (5) defence industry and (6) space. I'm pleased to say that the Sunshine Coast—and I know this will come as no surprise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie—is playing a very large role in many, if not most, of those areas, but particularly in the manufacturing of medical products, and food and beverage, and, after many years of my own advocacy, in the defence space as well. That's defence, not necessarily space, which is the sixth one. I'm just seeing if you are keeping up!</para>
<para>We also wanted to ramp up commercialisation activity at universities beyond the big cities. We wanted to see genuine and purposeful collaboration between universities and industry, and we wanted to back innovators and scholars who could deliver on those projects. We began by funding the $243 million Trailblazer Universities Program to boost research and development. This saw universities like the University of Southern Queensland, in regional Queensland, take a lead in Australia's space industry research and commercialisation. We injected $150 million into the CSIRO Main Sequence Ventures program to back start-ups engaged in commercial research, and we put $296 million on the table to fund 1,800 industry PhDs and 800 fellowships over a decade. That is a very significant investment into individual research projects.</para>
<para>We made a plan, and we acted, because we believe in Australia's researchers and Australia's research potential. But research without consequence is not bang for buck when it comes to federal government funding. I want to remind this government that the money in their budget is taxpayers' money. It belongs to the Australian people, whose good faith keeps us here and decides who will govern this country for the benefit of all Australians. The Australian people expect that their money is invested in research which will improve their lives, research which can be translated into something meaningful—research which can be commercialised. That's why our University Research Commercialisation package included $1.6 billion for a decade-long investment into Australia's Economic Accelerator, a staged and competitive funding program to support universities to do just that. This bill will support small businesses and local manufacturers on the Sunshine Coast and across Australia, who will benefit from the commercialisation of research.</para>
<para>It's vital that we invest in new-to-industry innovations and that we invest in our regional communities. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, that is a topic and issue which is very near and dear to your heart. I think of the one-minute COVID test, which was made possible thanks to both an advancing commercialisation manufacturing grant and the research capacity of the University of Utah. It was the first product of its kind made here in Australia, employing advanced technologies and methods drawn from cutting-edge sciences like quantum biology and the Internet of Things. With this investment, domestic universities will be able to offer a similar level of research capability in emerging fields, meaning that innovators will look to Australia first. This bill will help us stem the drain of private investment into research by backing in our research institutions as they enter the unknown in some of our most cutting-edge industries. I think of the Turbine project developed by the Food and Agribusiness Network, which both the member for Fairfax and I supported for many years. This project, based at the Sunshine Coast Airport and funded by the coalition government, will see the Sunshine Coast become a launch pad for primary producers and manufacturers to export their goods across the nation and indeed around the world.</para>
<para>Both these projects are platforms and products born on the Sunshine Coast which have the potential to transform the local economy and global industry. I think it's important to note that these were not ideas cooked up in the CBDs of Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne or even here in Canberra. These were created in regional Australia by regional Australian innovators. With the support of the federal government, they've been able to translate their ideas into marketable and market-supporting products and services.</para>
<para>To that end, I'm particularly keen to see regional universities afforded their fair share of investment under this package. I welcome the Minister for Education, who has, clearly, noted the content of my speech and come into this chamber to listen to it, and a very good thing it is, too! I also want to see regional universities and regional industry represented at the decision-making table. Regional universities play a crucial role in supporting and delivering regional economic development strategies and in uplifting the economy, community and livability in these regions. University research can play a particularly significant role in boosting the efficiency and resilience of primary producers in addition to the resources, healthcare and regional tourism sectors.</para>
<para>In my own patch I'm very proud to say that the University of the Sunshine Coast is doing just that. Fisheries are thriving in regional communities, with rural localities relying on primary industries like agriculture and fisheries which are engaged in our retail, tourism and professional services sectors. These are the areas on which the University of the Sunshine Coast is having a remarkable impact. Since 2016 alone UniSC has delivered nearly $25 million worth of international agriculture research into forest biosecurity, sustainable fisheries and building supply chain resilience for fruitgrowers, pearl miners and seaweed exporters. Queensland great Professor Peter Timms has led world-leading research into vaccine development, most notably for the protection of our endangered koalas from the problems that they have with chlamydia. The university's work in mapping our local emerging innovation ecosystem to guide what some are calling the 'silicon coast' has led the Sunshine Coast to successful efforts in being named a smart city both at home and abroad.</para>
<para>As the education minister is here and because he's relatively new to the job and he may not have heard of the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast, I'll take the opportunity to talk about the institute. It's attached to the University of the Sunshine Coast and was funded by the previous government to the tune of $20 million to provide research funding for things like post-traumatic stress disorder. They're building the first research facility in the country dedicated to PTSD, and Thompson Institute have been doing some amazing work in neuroscience research. We know that we're suffering from the scourge of mental health problems in this country, and, rather than just loading people up with drugs, Professor Jim Lagopoulos is doing groundbreaking research work. We funded a particular type of MRI machine for the Thompson Institute so that they can take images of the brain and look in detail at how drugs impact on people who suffer from various mental illnesses. It is groundbreaking research, and I take this opportunity to remind the education minister about the great work that Thompson Institute does because it's not only a research facility but also a teaching facility.</para>
<para>The function and governance of the program I'm talking about is not just about a pool of funds to be dished out willy-nilly. From the initial proof of concept through the difficult period of trial and testing to commercial realisation, universities will be evaluated and supported. This is about attracting projects with high commercialisation potential, projects that are scalable and ready to progress. It's not about theoretical and philosophical propositions; it's about tangible and practical outcomes for the market and the Australian community. Strict governance and industry engagement will see this funding invested where it will reap the best dividends. This includes an advisory board that draws upon the collective experience of industry, government and both the university and corporate sectors. The work of the board and the program outcomes will be distilled into an annual report provided to the parliament and presented by the minister. I note that the report will look at the regulatory, financial and cultural barriers that exist for commercialising our research and propose opportunities to address these barriers.</para>
<para>I call on the federal government and the advisory board—and, as the minister is in the chamber, I reiterate this point—to ensure that geographical barriers and disparities affecting regional Australian universities are considered and represented in decision-making. This is about giving regional unis, regional industries and regional academics a fair go. We don't want to see all of these funds go to the major universities in our largest cities.</para>
<para>It's also about providing clarity, structure and certainty to newly created research opportunities and pathways. This includes embedding researchers in industry settings and engaging industry and businesses more comprehensively in the process of research and in research outputs. It looks like companies hosting PhD students and postgraduate researchers, a model which will provide benefits to industry, individuals and the institution itself. This kind of approach will boost researcher employability beyond academia and will equip universities with the knowledge and platform to foster employment, work experience and financial partnership opportunities. In other words, the program provides a chance for meaningful collaboration across sectors and allows universities to back in highly skilled workforces in critical sectors.</para>
<para>I'm also pleased to see a new suite of Australian Research Council fellowships to acknowledge and reward our academics who collaborate with industry to drive the translation and commercialisation of their research into products, services and employment outcomes. This is about building career pathways in innovation for scholars and graduates, and it is about turbocharging Australia's research commercialisation capabilities at regional and global levels. I look forward to a whole new cohort of ARC fellows from UniSC and regional universities across the country tackling a variety of issues across those industries and others.</para>
<para>As I said from the outset, I support this bill because it's a good bill, and it's a good bill because it's a coalition bill. Once again, the Labor government has little plan for research commercialisation so they've taken ours, but I'm not complaining. It just shows once again that the coalition is on the side of small businesses, manufacturers and regional universities. The coalition is on the side of Australians who want to have a go. We are the party of the pioneer Australians. We are the party of the Australian dream, of the hard worker, the innovator and the changemaker. We are the party of regional Australians, and I'm proud to speak on their behalf today.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Minister, for being here. I wasn't expecting you to be here. I'm the last person on a list.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Clare</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You came for me.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I did. You don't need to hear talking points, so I'll just use this opportunity to talk to you, if that's alright?</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WOLAHAN</name>
    <name.id>235654</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I've been very impressed with you as a minister. Through the election, I thought you did very well, and I thought you spoke very sincerely today in the parliament. Leaving the politics of blame that you spoke about at the end aside, the statistics you read out were highly alarming. I, too, and many of my colleagues on this side are worried about widening inequality. Economics and education matter. It matters not just for this generation but it cascades down through the decades for Australia. I'm worried that in decades to come we will say to children your fate in life will be whether your parents own your house, whether both parents are together, whether you went to a private school. All of these things add up, where we risk becoming a more divided society. I wasn't born here. My parents left Ireland. They were economic refugees, neither of whom finished high school. The thing they looked for in another country was opportunity and equality of opportunity, where it didn't matter that your parents didn't finish high school but your children might have a better future. People talk about the United States being the land of opportunity, but I always think that this place does it much better than they do. They talk about it, but we practice it. But that's a fragile thing, and it's at great risk. So I congratulate you for raising that. You'll always have my support for meaningful engagement in that area, particularly when we hear the horror stories from COVID. Teachers will tell me that some parents would sit and enforce students in Victoria, where we had more lockdowns, being in front of the laptop, but many didn't. Often that wasn't their fault—they were working, doing the Uber Eats deliveries or working in hospitals or doing the shifts were they were essential workers and there was no grandparent or someone else to do it. But those kids fell behind, and how do you make that up? So you've got our full support in that. I also want to congratulate you. I got your letter about nominating a teacher for an Order of Australia medal. It is often too easy to forget certain areas and it was disturbing to see that only one teacher was nominated. I will certainly send that out to my school principals and I hope some nominations do come from that because I have met so many who are worthy. I hope the honours and awards committee get flooded with teacher nominations.</para>
<para>To the substance of this bill, obviously it has bipartisan support. It was initiated by the previous government. When my parents told me, 'Make the most of my education, take it for as long as you can ride it and get the most out of it,' I sort of got on this treadmill where you try and out compete your fellow students by getting into a particular university or school. The test of that was to go to an overseas university. I did that. It was one of those curtains that I peeled back and I felt a bit silly but it made me realise how good our universities are. It was a prestigious university and it looked nice on my CV but it was no different than a prestigious watch—it was just a brand and they are very good at branding. Australian universities are excellent, but one of the things those prestigious universities overseas do is leverage their connections with industry much better than we do. That doesn't just feed into the economy but it makes those universities and all of the tech sectors and other areas around them much more useful to the national mission and the national economy.</para>
<para>As a Victorian, one of the greatest exports we have is education. It is a huge sector of our economy. I'm proud to say that the seat that I represent is named after Robert Menzies. His great passion, other than home and parliament, was education. He was the chancellor of Melbourne University. He could have done many things after politics but that is where he devoted his energies. It is a core value for the Liberal Party, it was a core value for Robert Menzies and it certainly is for me. It doesn't come without risk—wherever there is public money—and we are taking some risk. We should continue to monitor that, and I'm sure that will be done by the department, but there is also a role for the parliament, and we will come back to it again and see how it is going. This is a worthy bill. Thank you for pursuing it. You are welcome in the electorate of Menzies at any time, so thank you.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>144732</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Menzies for his very thoughtful contribution to the debate.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will start by thanking the member for Menzies for his very kind comments in contributing to this debate. There is often not enough kindness in this place. This might be a case of a mutual admiration society. Don't lose it is what I would say. I have been in this place now for 15 years. There's a lot of good people sitting around the chamber, not all on one side of the chamber. The member for Gippsland and I are good friends who collaborate on many things, including some things we are going to do next week to raise awareness about the risk of skin cancer. But, member for Menzies, I hope you don't mind me saying publicly what I have said privately, that I very much admired the comments you made on a difficult night, on election night for the Victorian elections last year. I thought to myself, 'Now there is a member of parliament to admire.' I very much look forward to seeing your contribution to this place and the work you do to represent the people of Menzies, including some of my family in Victoria.</para>
<para>I feel very much like the dog that caught the car, because it really is an enormous privilege to be the Minister for Education. I know, through my own life, as someone who was the first in my family to go to university, the first in my family to finish high school, the first in my family to finish year 10—my mum didn't even go to high school—what the power of education is. We are a different country today from the country that existed when my mum and dad grew up in the western suburbs of Sydney in the 1950s and 1960s. They grew up never expecting to finish school, let alone go to university. Back then, only about two or three per cent of young Aussies would have a university degree. Today it's almost 50 per cent—so different. The days of universities just being an enclave for elites, or this exclusive club where very few people get to go, are gone. But we still have challenges here.</para>
<para>While 40-odd per cent of Australians have a uni degree, it's only 20 per cent from the bush and it's only 20 per cent from my electorate. It's about seven per cent for Indigenous Australians. It's the same with preschools; it's the same with school. If you're born from a poor family or from regional Australia or are an Indigenous Australian, you're less likely to go to preschool, you're less likely to finish school and you're less likely to get a university degree.</para>
<para>It's not just an issue of fairness here for the individual; it's the consequences that has for us as a nation, because, as you rightly point out, there are intergenerational impacts. In a world like the one we live in, where most of the jobs that people will go into when they finish school require a TAFE qualification or a university qualification, if you don't finish school you're already disadvantaged. For communities like mine—and, I'm sure, others represented here—there is the risk that you further entrench disadvantage.</para>
<para>So what we do here collectively—not just what I do in my job but what we do as a nation and what state education ministers and state governments do, because they do a lot of the heavy lifting here—has an enormous impact on the world that we become. Think about that. Fifty years ago, three per cent had a uni degree; today it's about 45 per cent. That's nation-changing stuff, and I don't want us to be a country where in 10 or 20 years time we still have to accept the fact that your chances in life depend on who your parents are, how wealthy they are, what suburb you live in, what part of the country you live in or the colour of your skin. We are today.</para>
<para>Just for the information of colleagues—because I know you're interested in this—there are three big pieces of work that I've kicked off for this year. One is the Universities Accord, which is the first big review of higher education in 15 years, and that's started its work; there's the work I touched on in the parliament in question time today, which is the development of the next National School Reform Agreement; and then there's a big piece of work that will kick off soon, which the Productivity Commission will do, on what a new early education system might look like. I want you to think about a common thread that can run through all of those. That common thread is about how we change the problem that I just described, where your chances in life depend on how wealthy your parents are or where you live or the colour of your skin. If we can fix that with those big reviews that take place this year, then we'll have done some good. This legislation does some good too. I know colleagues have mentioned that it was initiated by the former government. That is absolutely right. This is a great example, I think, of the two parties working together. It's also a good example of government and universities working together as well and, most importantly, it's a good example of universities and businesses working together.</para>
<para>Our universities are fantastic. They punch above their weight when it comes to research. We probably don't do as well as we could when it comes to translating that and commercialising that research, and that's the endeavour we embark upon here today. Just as the minister thanked me for our support in bringing this back to the parliament, I want to thank him for the work that he did as minister in bringing this forward too. There are things we're going to disagree on in education, just as there are going to be things in every part of what is competitive democratic politics. But I think it's great that here's an area where we've got agreement. I'm very glad that I can stand here today and commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
<para>Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>164</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Molan, Senator Andrew James (Jim), AO, DSC</title>
          <page.no>164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to add just a few words of condolence in relation to the very sad passing of Major General Jim Molan. In doing so, I extend my sincere sympathies and condolences to Jim's family—to Anne, and to his children, Sarah, Erin, Felicity and Michael. It's a mark of the man that so many tremendous words have been spoken already in this place about Jim Molan, and I was struck, in the House earlier this week, when the Prime Minister and the opposition leader spoke so eloquently about an incredible gentleman and the contribution he'd made to our nation. But one of the stories that struck me the most was one by the Leader of the Opposition, where he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Jim considered himself to be an ordinary Australian, but he had an extraordinary life. He was a man who was at the centre of so many pivotal events which have shaped our nation, the region and, of course, the world: Papua New Guinea's independence, the fall of Suharto in Indonesia, evacuations from the Solomon Islands, peacekeeping in East Timor, counterinsurgency in Iraq, Australian bushfires, illegal maritime arrivals on our border and the rise of China.</para></quote>
<para>And I'm sure Jim would appreciate this: I felt at that time he was Australia's Forrest Gump, popping up all around the world; where there was any major milestone, there was Jim Molan, in his career.</para>
<para>Jim was someone who we borrowed from his family for a distinguished military career. I know the member for Herbert, and the member for Menzies, here just a few moments ago, understand more than most the sacrifice of service and the demands it places on families. So I thank Jim's family for that.</para>
<para>He was an incredible gentleman, and someone who I believe showed this place how to stay true to your convictions, despite the many challenges that were placed in front of him. He was a thoughtful man, a humble man, a very authentic character.</para>
<para>I remember, towards the dying days of my time as veterans' minister, when it was quite obvious that I wasn't continuing in that role in that particular week, Jim was to be presented with a quilt—the great Aussie quilt. People were paying testimony to his career. And Jim was adamant I had to be there as well. He went out of his way to make sure I could come along and be part of that special occasion for him.</para>
<para>So, as veterans' minister, I had plenty of engagements with Jim, and I have to say: amongst all the members and senators in this place, when it came to issues surrounding veterans, he was one who deeply understood the challenges, respected the harm that military service could inflict upon individuals and families, but was also very optimistic and positive about military service. He recognised that members who'd served had certainly changed—had been shaped by that service—but it wasn't all bad. He was someone who wasn't prepared to feed our veterans of diet of helplessness and hopelessness but one of positivity and optimism. That leadership role that he played in the veterans community was often, perhaps, underappreciated in the broader community, but I can assure the veterans community that Jim was often in my office, often on my phone, and a very popular member of this place with my own staff, because he was constructive and practical and came up with good ideas about how we could do more to support our veterans and their families.</para>
<para>So I'm honoured to have served in this place with Jim. I think my colleagues who will speak here tonight as well would share my view that we are privileged to have served alongside such a great Australian. And I extend my condolences.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THOMPSON</name>
    <name.id>281826</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A senator, a military officer, a mate, a family man, a patriot, a good Australian—that's who Jim Molan is. The tragic loss is something that was felt around this nation, by people who had served underneath him, people who'd worked alongside him in parliament, and, of course, his family. I reached out and spoke to a few of the members of his family at his funeral recently, and I told them that Jim, despite our age difference, was someone that I called a mate. Every anniversary of when I was wounded in Afghanistan, he would text or call, and say, 'How're you going, mate?' We would talk about veterans issues; we'd talk about defence; we'd talk about Australia, politics. The first thing out of every conversation when he would call would be, 'How's your girls?' checking in on my two daughters, Astin and Emery, and, of course, my wife. He was someone that cared, someone that understood that people would have differing opinions, and he understood his purpose in life, which was service.</para>
<para>He served with distinction through his military career, being awarded the Officer of the Order of Australia and a Distinguished Service Cross. He served well here in the Senate, not just taking up an argument or a fight but prosecuting our beliefs, our values, our thoughts. He was someone that had great concern for political direction in a very unique and challenging time around the world. He understood strategy, but he understood the operations. He was someone that didn't just think about what would happen if we needed to deploy troops; he would think about the strategy for it and what would happen during and after.</para>
<para>We've seen him lead with the US in Iraq. We've seen him be appointed as the envoy on Operation Sovereign Borders, which he helped design and then implement. And, in this place, he's written two books that outlay the serious concerns that he has, and that many of us have, and he also contributed to many committees. If you were in a defence or veterans committee and you needed to look for guidance or needed to look for someone that understood the leadership space but also understood what happens post service, you could look to Jim, and he would help you.</para>
<para>He cared so much for this country, and the only thing he cared more about than his country was his family. He loved his family. They know that. The way that he would speak about his children, his grandchildren and his wife made you feel warm, because he was pure. He didn't need to embellish anything; he didn't need to lie about anything. The only thing he didn't tell all of us was how unwell he was. But he would tell you that family is a great pillar of our society, and spending time with your family and the ones you love is so important. And, on the other hand, he would talk about the dangers around the world and the strategic direction we are in that may need to change to combat future threats.</para>
<para>He was such a great man, and I've called him, with the time difference, late at night, and he'd answer. Then we'd get into an hour-long conversation about something that probably would never eventuate, but it was something that I would like to talk about, and he was there to listen, provide advice, guidance and also a nice, calming hand, sometimes, when I would want to fly to Canberra and wring everyone's necks on some poor decision that was being made. He was a calming voice on that.</para>
<para>The soldiers that have served underneath him and served with him speak so highly of him. We've all heard stories about the private soldier not necessarily liking the commanding officer. I've been there. But the private soldier that served underneath him when CO 6 RAR said: 'Jim was the man. He was the guy I could turn to that would give fearless and frank advice and mentor us into what we needed to do in our future development and then future operations.' Other officers said that he was a leader, a natural leader, and someone that cared so greatly for his men and women that served underneath him. I've heard that throughout the country. But I think that one of Jim's greatest contributions to this parliament was in the last one, when he called me up and we were talking about the royal commission into veteran suicide. He said, 'I am a supporter, I know that we need to call it.' He knew and spoke with many family members who had lost their loved ones because of suicide. I think it kept him up at night knowing that there were soldiers, sailors and aviators out there that were dying by suicide.</para>
<para>Jim was always a good friend and a great mentor and he's a person that this parliament and the Senate will greatly miss. I offer my love and heartfelt condolences to his family, and may Jim rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on this condolence motion for a man whose love of country inspired almost five decades of military and public service. Major-General Senator Jim Molan AO, DSC was a patriot in the true sense of the word and he was a servant to the very end. In his own words, democracy in both concept and practice was a significant part of his career and life, perhaps more so than for many Australians. A large proportion of this, over 40 years, was service rendered through a number of roles in the Australian Defence Force.</para>
<para>He upheld law and order by backing up the police in Papua New Guinea as that ally and nation's fledgling democracy was born. He represented Australia in Indonesia at the fall of the Suharto dictatorship and the rise of democratic government. He put his life in harm's way to protect Australians and locals in East Timor and did the same again in the Solomon Islands. He led operations in Iraq supporting a coalition force of some 300,000 men and women in uniform. His decisions as a military leader often meant the difference between life and death.</para>
<para>Perhaps more than any other man or woman to have walked this parliament's halls in recent years, Jim knew the cost of this democracy, which we so often take for granted, and he understood the importance of protecting it. After decades in Defence, Jim made national security his chief priority as a commentator, an adviser and a parliamentarian. He was the co-author of Operation Sovereign Borders, one of Australia's most successful law enforcement operations, stemming the flow of human traffickers and restoring border integrity.</para>
<para>Despite a rocky start to his Senate tenure with its rough and tumble of party politics, Jim worked tirelessly to make his time count. On his entry to the Senate, Australians by and large went about their lives as though living in the halcyon days. Little did we know that it was really a calm before the storm. Thanks in large part to Jim's fearless and fervent advocacy, we are now awake to danger on our doorstep, with war in Europe and increasing instability in the Asia-Pacific. I had the pleasure of hosting Jim in my electorate of Fisher. I asked Jim to come and speak with my veterans at the Caloundra RSL back in about 2019, I think, and he was very, very warmly received by the veterans in my community.</para>
<para>Most recently, Jim's honest account of the rise of communist China and its disruption to the global rules based order has been a challenge to those of us with power who can actually do something about it. He warned us about the new domains of battle, the areas of cyber, in space and through economic supply chains. He warned us of the importance of fuel security, economic resilience and maintaining trust in our democratic institutions. Jim knew that protecting Australians and their interests at home and abroad is the No. 1 priority of any government, chamber and elected member, and his push for a comprehensive national security strategy has been a personal inspiration and is a cause I know many in this House will join me in taking up.</para>
<para>I had the privilege of working with Jim on the defence subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for a number of years. When Jim wasn't in the room, either because he was off doing other things or he was crook, I would often hear his voice more or less saying, 'Ask them this question.' His questions were often pitched at bureaucrats or members of the Defence Force. He would say: 'Well, what are we preparing for? What's our state of readiness in relation to X, Y and Z?' He was an incredibly powerful advocate, particularly in relation to all matters defence.</para>
<para>I think one of the most enduring memories I will take away of Jim is his strident, his fervent desire to want to see Australia have a national security strategy. He would say: 'It's all very well and good to have a defence strategy, but if the country itself is not united in relation to its supply chains, in relation to its manufacturing, in relation to its liquid fuel security, in relation to cyber—the protection of this country is not just about bombs and bullets. It is a whole-of not government, but a whole-of-community, a whole-of-Australia responsibility.' Jim's legacy to this parliament, to this nation, will hopefully, even though it fell on deaf ears amongst his own colleagues, be an enduring national security strategy. Because unless we have a national security strategy we are effectively attempting to defend this country in silos. And I was very, very proud to move a motion for our LNP State Council earlier this year, which was endorsed, about the importance of a national security strategy.</para>
<para>Jim's legacy that he has left us is a great one. I will miss him dearly because he became a good friend. I expect that many Australians will not know just how indebted we are to Jim Molan for his bravery, his foresight and his service. Jim Molan: pilot, politician, patriot, military officer, senator, servant, fighter, father, friend. On behalf of the people of Fisher, I offer my condolences to Jim's remarkable family: his wife, Anne; his children, Erin, Felicity, Michael and Sarah; and his grandchildren. To you and to Jim Molan I say simply this: thank you for your service, Jim. Rest easy, soldier, your work here is done. Be at peace. You have been a good and faithful servant. Vale, Jim Molan.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a testament to both the enormity of the contribution he made and the sheer decency of his nature that so many on both sides of the House have sought to contribute to this condolence motion on the passing of the great Jim Molan. I certainly wanted to ensure that I added my voice, and that of my community on the southern Gold Coast, to those paying tribute to a thorough gentleman and a true patriot.</para>
<para>Jim worked tirelessly in the national interest for so many decades, serving our nation on the battlefield, in the community and in the political arena. Many people I have spoken with in the weeks since Jim's passing have remarked on what an enormous loss to our nation it is that we won't have his wise counsel for the challenging times to come.</para>
<para>Jim understood the risks to our national security and our sovereignty, and he had a very honest and practical approach to being realistically prepared to deal with the ever-evolving geopolitical landscape. He was a realist about the times we live in, but, as the leader has described him, Jim was an optimist about humanity. That's why I think there has been such an outpouring of warmth and respect for him. He cared about people and believed in the goodness of humanity. That was the hallmark of his service and what helped drive him to contribute to his community and to our nation.</para>
<para>Jim had a very distinguished military career which saw him rise to the rank of Major General. He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Legion of Merit by the Australian and US governments respectively, adding to the Order of Australia he received for his earlier service in Indonesia and in East Timor. There have been countless stories of Jim's bravery, compassion and unflinching leadership during his decades serving our nation in the Army.</para>
<para>Jim's contribution I am most familiar with is the work that he did following the coalition's return to government in 2013 when Jim was asked by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to develop Operation Sovereign Borders. He achieved what at the time was thought impossible by many in politics and in the media: he stopped the boats. Now is not the time to make political points but it is instructive that we remember the significance of what was achieved with Operation Sovereign Borders after a flood of more than 820 illegal boats and over 50,000 unauthorised arrivals. With his methodical approach and wealth of experience, Jim worked with the Australian government to break the people smugglers' business model, prevent further tragic deaths of asylum seekers at sea and restore the integrity of Australia's maritime security. It is undoubtedly one of the most significant policy successes in our nation's history. Jim was so humble and he was kind. When he discussed these issues with my staff and also with me when I was home affairs minister and while we worked to protect the integrity of the system he actually developed. That is the measure of a very remarkable man.</para>
<para>Jim faced many tough situations in his lifetime. He never ever let ego get in the way of outcome and he never ever complained. We all know that politics can be a very brutal business but it is not surprising, given what he had faced outside the parliament, that Jim took the ups and downs of politics in his stride.</para>
<para>One of the things I was and remain very pleased about was that he was ultimately returned to the Senate. He was one of the most talented and dedicated people to ever grace that chamber. So on behalf of my local community, I thank Jim, and acknowledge his massive contribution to our nation. I also offer heartfelt condolences to Jim's family—his loving wife, Anne, his daughters Sarah, Erin and Felicity, and his son, Michael, along with his five grandchildren. To them I say: your loss is immense but may you all find some comfort in the enormous respect, regard and fondness expressed in this debate for Jim. Our nation will be forever indebted to Jim and his contribution. May we always remember and may he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When you look at the Australian Army website, there on the first page, it has 'Defending Australia and our Interests'. The online page reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The ADF provides a formidable military capability built upon expertly-trained personnel and technically-advanced vessels, vehicles, aircraft and weapons. Working in close cooperation, the Navy, Army and Air Force are tasked with the defence of: our nation, its borders and coastline—</para></quote>
<para>Jim Molan.</para>
<quote><para class="block">our people and their values—</para></quote>
<para>That is Jim Molan too.</para>
<quote><para class="block">and our way of life.</para></quote>
<para>Of course, Jim's name is not on the website. I added that in, because each of those three points on defencejobs.gov.au refers to Jim Molan. He was all about our nation, its borders and coastline. Look at Operation Sovereign Borders. He helped stop the boats. He was all about our people and their values. No-one fought harder for those things than Jim Molan in his time in this place. He was one of the fiercest protectors of our way of life, our values, our principles. He was a soldier, a parliamentarian, a leader, a patriot and, most importantly, a dedicated family man and friend.</para>
<para>Jim's passing on 16 January aged 72 left a large hole in the Liberal Party, in the coalition and in our parliament. Indeed, his 72 years were packed with adventure, with a fierce fighting quality. We all know of his love for his wife, Anne; his daughters, Sarah, Erin and Felicity; his son, Michael; his five grandchildren; his extended family; and his loved ones.</para>
<para>Jim filled a couple of casual vacancies. The first in December 2017 was when Fiona Nash, a National, fell foul of that situation where people who were deemed to have dual nationality had to leave the parliament. I see the member for New England here. He had to leave the parliament but he got back in. Fiona Nash chose not to, and Jim filled that vacancy. If you went to the National party room, we would have liked a National to fill that vacancy. But if there was going to be one person to fill it who wasn't a National, it would have been Jim Molan. Indeed, he filled that position until June 2019. Come the 2019 election, Jim was in an unwinnable spot. Perin Davey filled the No. 3 spot on the coalition ticket, as per the coalition arrangements. Jim decided to go it alone. That caused a bit of consternation amongst the Nationals but, again, if anybody was going to win a spot, it would have been Jim Molan.</para>
<para>I was Deputy Prime Minister at the time. I can remember turning up in my own home town of Wagga Wagga. I approached this election booth in the west of the city and there was a sea of blue everywhere. I thought, 'Who can this be? There is no candidate with blue in my home town. This is a Nationals stronghold.' Of course, it was Jim. He had banners, he had corflutes and he had people donned in blue T-shirts who outnumbered the Nationals almost 10 to one. It was like an army. Jim was back in the army and he was fighting for his position. At last count—I stand to be corrected—he got about 132,000 first-preference votes. It was more than anybody in the lower house, more than anybody in the upper house, more than anybody in probably Australian political history. It is a bit of a quirk of the Senate system that he actually did not get elected. I think he needed something like 600,000 votes. But 132,000 first-preference votes in New South Wales shows the popularity of the man, shows the strength of the man, shows how people were willing to go with Jim. As I said, he did not get elected. Perin Davey did and she is doing an outstanding job now as deputy leader of the Nationals federally. But Jim then did fill a Senate vacancy when Arthur Sinodinos resigned. Arthur wasn't well. He went on and did some great things in the US, of course, as our ambassador.</para>
<para>Probably my favourite memory of Jim was at a protest rally, would you believe? It was actually supposed to be the opening of the Merimbula Airport back on 18 December 2019. We had Andrew Constance there as the state Liberal member for Bega, we had now member for Eden-Monaro, Kristy McBain, there as the Bega Valley Shire Council mayor, and we had Jim as the duty senator. As I was trying to make this wonderful announcement as the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development about the upgrade to the Merimbula Airport, there were these climate protesters who thought their voices and their cause were far more important than anything we were doing that day. They were rowdy, they were noisy, they were downright rude, and Jim wasn't having anything of it. You can see in the video Jim sort of moving sideways and edging, in a polite but very firm way, these protesters out of the way so that they couldn't disrupt my wise words. It is just a classic video to watch Jim at his finest. Indeed, the protesters didn't get anywhere near us because Jim made sure of it. He was a fine fellow. I know everybody on this side loved him. We just did, because he said what he thought and he meant what he said.</para>
<para>In this day and age when there are some sensitive Nellies in this place—there truly are people who should not be silent when they ought to speak—Jim would never fall into that category. Jim spoke his mind. When some people were all too scared or all too timid to actually say what they thought about a hot topic of discussion at the time, Jim was the first to lead the charge, just like he would have been in his army career and just like he was when he led Operation Sovereign Borders. Even with his book, <inline font-style="italic">Danger on our Doorstep</inline>, it was probably unpopular at the time for some to turn up to that book launch, but I did. I'm sure others did. I know the member for New England absolutely would have. I was pleased that the now opposition leader, Peter Dutton, turned up and said some fine words, because we respected Jim and we respected his authenticity. In this day and age where almost too many people fall into the trap of just saying what they think the media wants to hear and probably go along with the flow of what might get them a few likes on Facebook but not really appeal to those quiet Australians, Jim was out there fighting the good fight.</para>
<para>I do offer my heartfelt condolences and my absolute prayers to his family, to the Liberal Party and to the coalition, because we've lost a great warrior. We've lost a great statesman. I know many Australian Army members—I represent Kapooka where all the recruits go through—and I know how fondly he's thought of in the military, as he should be. May his legacy live long in all of those who are honoured and privileged to serve in this place on behalf of the coalition, because there are some fights to be fought and won. May his spirit loom large over us when we have those debates, and may we long remember fondly his contribution to this place and to this nation. Vale, Jim Molan.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>e5d</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the fine words of the former speaker, the member for Riverina. Right at the outset I'd like to say to Anne, Sarah, Erin, Felicity, Michael and the grandchildren the reason this is a longer condolence motion than most people ever get in this place is that your father and grandfather and husband was held in such high esteem by his colleagues and by the Australian people.</para>
<para>In life there are three types of people. There are the ones who throw papers out the window of the car. You can't stop them; they just chuck them out. I don't know why they do it. They just do it. Then you get people who always complain about people who throw papers out the window of the car. They're always talking about the terrible person who throws papers out. But there's a really special small group and they're called the 'paper picker-uppers'. They actually stop the car, get out and pick up the papers. They're the people that make a nation great. Jim Molan was a perfect example of a paper picker-upper. He spent his life picking up papers for our nation. He served till the end. When he knew he was dying he kept serving because this country and that flag was more important than him. And the reason he got himself into the positions of influence was to look after Australia. That's why he did it. He loved Australia, and he was going to protect our nation.</para>
<para>Right from the outset he was blessed. God bless him, he was a good-looking fellow. I saw the photos of him when he was young. He was a good-looking bloke. I would hate to be in a competition with him at a dance; he would come first every time. He was a good-looking bloke and he was talented. He was a really good AFL player yet he managed also to have an exemplary record as a family man, looking after his family, being a loving husband to Anne and being a great father to his children. What an incredibly full life.</para>
<para>I suppose I also want to acknowledge what the member for Riverina said. Yes, when he first got elected, when Fiona Nash lost the job, I was kind of angry. I was going, 'Surely that's a Nat position and a Nat person should be filling that position.' I said: 'I don't know who this Jim Molan is. As far as I'm concerned, it should be another Nat who gets up in that position.' So I started from the premise of not wanting to like him, but I was disabused of that belief very quickly because I could see: 'This guy is full bottle. This is good for our nation.'</para>
<para>His biggest thing was to go against the zeitgeist and to be completely truthful with the Australian people. <inline font-style="italic">Danger </inline><inline font-style="italic">O</inline><inline font-style="italic">n </inline><inline font-style="italic">O</inline><inline font-style="italic">ur Doorstep</inline> was a classic example—but only one, and probably one of the last examples—of how Jim would say, 'Wake up.' He could break through the political correctness and just hit you between the eyes and say: 'Do you understand what is happening? Do you understand the threat this nation is under? Do you understand what the intentions of the Communist Party in China are? Do you know what that will mean for your children?'—or for his children. 'If their views prevail and our life fails, what's the life that they are going to have? So wake up. Get serious. Switch on. Put aside the political correctness and be truthful about the threat that's before you.' And I thought that was exemplary.</para>
<para>Both the member for Riverina and I have been deputy chair of the National Security Committee, an incredible honour. Now, you have a lot of advisers. I had one unpaid-for adviser who was constantly on the phone, and that was one Jim Molan, telling me everything that he needed to happen. Later on he became another adviser to one Vikki Campion about everything she should write, because he wanted his message out. He never went to sleep without thinking about this nation, without thinking, 'You've got to hear this; you've got to do this.' He could have just retired. He could have just struck his hoochie, as they would say in the Army, put it back in with his kit and gone home. He could have done that, but he didn't. He kept fighting for our nation.</para>
<para>I campaigned with him in Eden-Monaro. He was a crook man. He was crook, and we were going around with the candidate trying to see if we could get this candidate up in Eden-Monaro. He never complained. He never turned up and said: 'I feel really sick. I feel down in the chops. I'm not up to this today.' He just muscled on. He got over it and got out there and did it for Australia.</para>
<para>Now, I think the mark of so many people here—because let's be honest. For most of us, all the people here, if I said, 'Name all the people who were in the parliament when you arrived,' you won't be able to give their names; you'd be lucky if you got half of them. Most people go through here and are forgotten about. Not Jim. He won't be. He won't be forgotten.</para>
<para>Without being too grandiose, but to borrow a metaphor, not a simile: when Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, it didn't even make the papers. It was like a non-event:'Oh, and this other bloke called Lincoln gave a speech and blah, blah, but don't worry about that.' They gave this marvellous discourse about this flowery BS speech that was given by some general, and I can't even remember his name. But the one that they remember now is Lincoln's, because a good career, like a good wine, matures over time and is appreciated by the appropriate palates who can understand the value that was in that person's life, and they look at that person's life through the prism of patriotism—not nationalism, which is unguided belief in your nation, but patriotism, a love of your nation. Jim had a love of Australia.</para>
<para>And so, to Jim, who railed against so much that has already been said here, where we sanitise to the point of a lie—so much is said. He was so refreshing that he would just say the truth. To Jim, who wanted to be known as 'Jim', not as 'sir', not as his rank—he wanted to be known as Jim. He was not full of himself. He believed in himself, which you must do, but he was not full of himself. He walked out of this place and said, 'I want to be known as Jim.' Well, Jim, you have been a faithful servant, and now it is time for your rest. You have been a great adornment to our nation. You'll be so sadly missed. You have been a patriot, you have been a father and a grandfather, and you have brought honour. You have brought honour to this parliament and you have brought honour to your family. May you rest in peace, old mate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to add my words to those that have come before, especially from the member for New England and the member for Riverina, and pay my condolences to the family of Jim Molan AO, DSC, in particular to his wife, Anne; his children, Sarah, Erin, Felicity and Michael; and his grandchildren. I had the privilege to attend the funeral of Jim on 25 January. It was one of those funerals where at the end of it you walked away and you thought to yourself, 'If I get one-hundredth of the send-off that has just been given to that man, then I've lived my life to its fullest.' It was the most wonderful, wonderful tribute to a life well lived that you could ever see. All facets of Jim's life were on display in a humble, beautiful and loving way. It was quite extraordinary. The way that the family spoke about Jim as the family man—the love that you saw from that family towards Jim was all too apparent and was incredibly moving. Those who had served with him spoke with respect but spoke also with a sense of humour, because, although he was a straight-up-and-down man of integrity, Jim also had a great sense of humour, and that came through as well.</para>
<para>It was wonderful to hear the words of Peter Dutton, who spoke beautifully about Jim's contribution to the parliament and the courage that he showed. As people have said, Jim said what he thought, but he said it thoughtfully. That is incredibly important, because we can all say what we think, but the mark of a true representative is someone who says what they think but says it thoughtfully, and Jim did that.</para>
<para>I'll never forget the first time I met Jim. I was newly appointed as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, and I was asked to go to a branch meeting in Bungendore. Jim always had an interest in the electorate of Eden-Monaro, and he came to this branch meeting. I'll never forget this big man walking in, walking up, saying, 'Hello,' putting his big hand out and shaking it, looking me in the eye and saying: 'I'm Jim. Lovely to meet you.' And he had such a warmth and a smile that you immediately just went, 'I like you. I like you.' It was quite incredible. I still remember that handshake. Right through my career here in this parliament, every interaction I had with Jim was like that.</para>
<para>My lasting memory was Jim wanting to make sure that we did that comprehensive national security strategy. My hope is that amongst all of us—I must say it's been wonderful to hear the contribution from our National Party friends today, because I don't think I've seen so much love for the Liberal Party in a long, long time! But I've got to say I think it's beholden on all of us now, especially on the coalition side, to make sure that that comes to fruition. My hope is that at the next election, as part of our policy, we have a comprehensive national security strategy. I think that would be a great way to honour Jim's legacy. I hope we can make sure that happens.</para>
<para>Jim was a soldier. He was a volunteer, and the stories of his volunteerism, especially fighting fires and doing so from the air, were wonderful to hear. That was a part that I hadn't really understood—how he was involved in that volunteer side, about keeping our community safe. As all of us know, especially those who represent regional and rural areas, that volunteerism absolutely is essential as to who we are and how we make sure that our communities continue to survive and flourish.</para>
<para>He was a senator, but he wasn't just a senator; he was a representative. He represented the people, he represented the party, he represented the membership of the Liberal Party, and people were proud that he was their representative. They were proud he was their representative. You never heard anyone say that they didn't think that Jim had all the fine qualities and attributes that you need to be a representative—and that is what he was.</para>
<para>He was also a writer. To those of us who write—and some of us write the odd opinion piece; some of us might write a little bit longer, but Jim wrote books, and, as we've heard previously, very good, very sound, very thoughtful books on very, very important issues. The service that he showed to this nation, that even on his deathbed he wanted to put words down that would advantage our nation going forward and make sure that we continued to think about the issues which will define not only Australia but the Indo-Pacific region going forward—that he was doing that on his deathbed is the absolute epitome of everything that Jim stood for.</para>
<para>To his family, can I once again say how deeply, deeply sorry I am that Jim has left us, I think still with so much to give. But you can know in your hearts that, for every minute that he was on this earth, he gave his all and made a contribution that all of us in this place would love to in some way be able to follow. May he rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to rise to make my contribution to this condolence motion, acknowledging the memory and the contribution of the late Senator Jim Molan AO, DSC, former major general in the Australian Army.</para>
<para>First of all, amongst his many characteristics, Jim Molan was a family man. He was very proud of his family, and I certainly want to express my condolences to his wife, Anne; daughters, Sarah, Erin and Felicity; son, Michael; and five grandchildren. Each of his children has built a successful career, but, as minister for communications, I had the privilege of working with Jim's daughter Erin on the question of online safety, where she's been a very strong advocate. And she very effectively lent her standing in the community to a very, very important area of public policy. The Online Safety Act that we were able to pass through the parliament in 2021 owed its success in material measure, in significant measure, to the advocacy and support of Erin Molan. I know that Jim was very, very proud of the work that Erin did in this area, as he was very proud of all his children. He consistently posted on social media about the work that Erin was doing in these online safety reforms.</para>
<para>Of course, while Jim Molan was first and foremost a family man, he was also a very distinguished and committed Australian patriot, whether through his service over many years in our armed forces or his services in our parliament.</para>
<para>He was a man of very high integrity who always put the interests of his constituents and of the nation at the very centre of his concerns. He served our country with distinction as a major-general in the Australian Defence Force. He played a crucial role in shaping our military strategies, and his role as chief of operations in Iraq was a high point of his career. He represented Australia with great distinction in that multinational force and in the work and the deliberations that went on in directing those extensive operations.</para>
<para>As is well known, his military expertise in developing and executing what became known as Operation Sovereign Borders was drawn upon by the Liberal-National government and, indeed, before that in opposition. We were as an opposition and subsequently as the government determined to stop the dangerous trade of the people smugglers. We knew that regrettably many lives were lost as desperate people took journeys that were organised by criminal gangs, and it was very important that this be stopped in a way that was effective, humane and consistent with Australian values.</para>
<para>Jim's advice on the difficult work of developing and implementing those policies was of the first importance. Prime Minister Abbott appointed him special envoy for Operation Sovereign Borders. That allowed him to travel, particularly across South-East Asia, to work with like-minded nations and regional partners to develop and implement the anti-people-smuggling measures that were so important. Jim's military career was long and storied. He was held in high esteem by his colleagues, from infantrymen to his fellow senior officers, and he was recognised rightly for his bravery and his leadership.</para>
<para>Subsequent to his time in the military he became involved in politics. He set out to familiarise himself with the complex beast that is the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party, and he did so with great success. Many people seek to be preselected to a winnable spot on the Liberal Party's New South Wales Senate ticket, but very few people achieve it. Jim managed to achieve it in a remarkably short period of time and he built up a cadre of devoted supporters across the entire New South Wales division of the party. Once he got to the Senate he brought to bear his enormous wealth of knowledge and experience. He was a respected voice on many important issues: defence, foreign affairs and immigration. His contributions to the Senate and to our national discourse will have a lasting impact on our national policies.</para>
<para>Just last year he released his second book, <inline font-style="italic">Danger On Our Doorstep</inline> regarding the security environment in the Indo-Pacific. His first book, <inline font-style="italic">Running the War in Iraq</inline>, gave his insider account of the very senior role he played in that conflict and in the multinational force which ultimately included some 300,000 troops from many countries.</para>
<para>As well as his characteristic as a family man and his distinguished achievements as both a military man and a politician, I want to conclude with some observations about Jim's character and the way that he conducted himself and the impact that he had on others. Jim was a kind and generous man and formed friendships easily. He was a towering figure figuratively and literally, and he was known for his infectious smile, warm personality and genuine concern for others.</para>
<para>Jim was known to treat everybody with good grace and respect. Certainly I well recollect the time when he came to address the Bradfield federal electorate conference in my electorate. He was very warmly received by my local Liberal Party members, and that is indicative of the regard in which he was held amongst Liberal Party numbers and amongst members of the community more broadly—certainly across the North Shore of Sydney but across New South Wales.</para>
<para>At Jim's funeral recently in Canberra, there were many stories told of his character and the respect in which was held by others. One of those stories concerned his focus on ensuring that his troops were fit and disciplined and prepared for what conflict might bring, through his practice of holding 24-hour marches with just five minutes rest each hour. After the formal part of the funeral I caught up with Father Rob Sutherland, who's well known to me as a former rector of St John's church in Gordon in my electorate, and he's a longstanding ADF chaplain. Rob told me something I hadn't known before: that he had served under Jim's leadership and he had personal experience of the 24-hour marches. He was able to confirm that they had in fact occurred. But Rob also told me how Jim had backed him strongly when Rob first set out to transition towards a career as an Australian Defence Force chaplain. Like the hundreds of people at that service, Rob Sutherland's life was touched positively by Jim Molan, and the number of people who turned out was a strong indicator of the lives that he had impacted. Jim Molan's legacy will live on through the countless Australians he's helped and through the many important causes he has championed.</para>
<para>Let me close by again expressing my condolences to Jim's family; to all who worked with him in the Australian Defence Force; to his staff here in parliament; and to my parliamentary colleagues. Collectively, all of us will greatly miss him and remember and honour his memory.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 16 January, Australia lost an accomplished New South Wales senator, a proud military man and a very vocal patriot. At the time when we heard the news, I was in Washington, DC, with a parliamentary delegation, and we stopped to mark Jim's passing. I said some words. The member for Menzies also said some words, as did the member for Moncrieff, and we stopped and saluted his service and his life.</para>
<para>He was truly a towering man, a towering figure in this parliament. As an Australian Army officer who held one of the most senior positions in decades, as the chief of operations in the Iraq War, Senator Molan brought immense experience into this place. Jim Molan served in the ADF for 40 years, from 1968 to 2008, retiring at the rank of major general. I only served for 13 years, but Jim and I did serve together in Holsworthy in New South Wales. Honourable members would be aware of that base. He was an infantryman like me. It's just that I was the most junior officer in Holsworthy and Jim, as the commander of the 1st Brigade, was the most senior officer at Holsworthy Barracks at that time. So it was there that I met him for the first time.</para>
<para>He's renowned for his connection and work with Indonesia. At that time in the paratrooper team, we had some visiting Indonesian officers, and they wanted to meet Jim Molan. So, because I spoke a bit of Bahasa Indonesia, I was asked to see if we could get a meeting with this big figure for these Indonesian junior officers. They knew all about him from his time in Indonesia. And it was when I was introducing those young Indonesian officers to the brigade commander, Jim Molan, a brigadier at the time, that I really got the first sense for how big—not only physically but how large a figure as a commander—he was.</para>
<para>Jim Molan knew Indonesia very well. Throughout his career he spent significant time there, but he also, importantly, commanded Australian Army units, ranging from platoons of 30 soldiers to divisions of 1,500 soldiers, as his career progressed. He was an infanteer, but he was also a helicopter pilot—so very multi-talented. For that work I mentioned that he did in Iraq, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross by Australia and the US Legion of Merit.</para>
<para>Throughout his career he served in posts and operations including: Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Indonesia as I mentioned, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Germany, the United States and, of course, Iraq. In fact, one day here in Canberra when I was returning from a briefing at Joint Operations Command, at JOC out at Bungendore where many honourable members have been to and received briefings, I came back here to the house in a car with Jim. He was very generous in sharing his experiences as a young officer, particularly his early service with the 1st Battalion of the Pacific Islands Regiment in PNG and how much he learned as a junior officer at that time.</para>
<para>On operations such as East Timor, during our intervention, he was known for putting himself in physical danger to save locals and Australians from harm whether they be civilian, uniform, Timorese, Australian or from any other country. Jim's friend Greg Sheridan wrote in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian</inline> newspaper that he was a great, brave and straight character. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">More than anyone I've known, in Jim Molan there was not a sliver of daylight between what he said and what he did.</para></quote>
<para>I can certainly believe that. While Jim and I were on different sides of politics, I admired in him his commitment to service and his tireless advocacy on strengthening our Australian Defence Force.</para>
<para>Now many are much better placed than me to comment on Jim's character because they knew him a lot better, and I acknowledge all of the previous speakers and their experiences with Jim. I would also just pay tribute, though, to what was obvious, and that was his abiding passion. And that, as far as I could see, was the defence of Australia. I remember from the moment that I heard that he was leaving the Army—I kept on eye on him, of course—I thought that he might go into politics. I was interested to hear what he had to say free from the ADF. And he obviously became a very strong voice on defence matters.</para>
<para>The accounts of Greg Sheridan and other sources are confirmed by Senator Molan's 2022 book <inline font-style="italic">Danger </inline><inline font-style="italic">On </inline><inline font-style="italic">Our </inline><inline font-style="italic">Doorstep</inline>, which analyses the risks of a major regional war. We know that Senator Molan was immensely frustrated that his repeated warnings on defence, from his perspective, were not being taken seriously. I did meet with him in his office to discuss his concerns because I was keen to learn. I knew of him. I knew we might not see eye to eye on everything, but I was keen to learn and, essentially, his warnings went as follows. He saw the ADF as being designed not to have any strategic effects independently of the United States and that was reinforcing our dependence by building a one-shot force. That was a lesson that he drew from his time in command in Iraq. In the book, Senator Molan forcefully argued that we are preparing for the wrong war if we still define the role of the ADF as deploying small, politically symbolic forces to coalition operations in far-flung theatres like Iraq and Afghanistan. It's important to note that Senator Molan was fair-minded and he was not limited to always making a partisan calculation on this question. From what I saw, he equally critiqued the coalition's record as well as that of our side of the House when it came to defence policy.</para>
<para>Now, I raise this question because Jim Molan's thinking on how to defend Australia if there is a next war—and we know from history that's likely—but, as he set out in that book, and what he set out in that book and the thinking that he has assisted to bring about in that book, actually may be one of his greatest strategic legacies. It is a legacy that we, on all sides of the House and Senate, can and should learn from. It's a contribution that should be learned from. I think he was, in the truest sense of the words, a national-interest-first politician.</para>
<para>He leaves behind a great and painful void in his family, a few of them that I've met. Obviously, the void is also with his colleagues and staff in this parliament. I salute him for his long service to our country, and, on behalf of my family and myself, send our deepest condolences to Jim's wife, Anne; daughters Sarah, Erin and Felicity; his son, Michael; his five grandchildren; and the rest of his family. So, vale, Senator Jim Molan AO, DSC. Your duty done. Rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an honour this evening to remember the late Senator Jim Molan in this place. Jim was a friend, he was a colleague, and he was a patriot. But he was also a man of immense warmth and energy, and I want to focus on that aspect of his character tonight. The warmth and energy is my enduring memory of him, from my first encounter to our final goodbye late last year.</para>
<para>I first met Jim in 2005 as an officer cadet at the Australian Defence Force Academy. I'd started a history society and we were after speakers to come and speak to the cadets, and Jim had just come back from Iraq, where he was the commanding general or running operations over there, and he took up the offer. He didn't have to, but he did. He was generous with his time. He came and spoke to us about his efforts running the coalition over there. I remember meeting him at the ADFA flagpole all those years ago, and he gave me a big handshake, a big warm smile, and went straight to nicknames. He said, 'G'day, Andy, great to be here, mate,' instantly putting me at ease. He was a senior officer at that time, but that was his way with people. His enthusiasm gave energy and confidence to others.</para>
<para>When we served in the parliament more than a decade later, Jim was the same man, brimming with energy, ideas and goodwill. I remember, on the intelligence committee, working with Jim. Having hip replacements, working through painkillers—none of that stopped him; he kept contributing. I remember thinking to myself, 'If I've got that much energy at his age, I'll be a very lucky man.'</para>
<para>Jim's contribution in this parliament, I think, was that he was singularly focused on Australia's security, devoting his final years to sounding the bell on areas of concern, from national strategy to supply chain resilience. In all of this, Jim was direct about the threats to Australia, even if his straight talk made people uncomfortable, which it did. Tough conversations are never easy, but Jim was always a soldier at heart, by vocation and instinct. He was bluff and straightforward, and his duty came first. I think that's why he wrote and finished <inline font-style="italic">D</inline><inline font-style="italic">anger on our </inline><inline font-style="italic">Doorstep</inline> while battling cancer. He believed that Australia—the public; that's who the book was aimed at—needed to have the tough conversation about our strategic circumstances. He didn't give much away while he was battling cancer, but, even as the shadows lengthened, he finished the mission of completing that book. I think that will be his lasting contribution to the public discussion about where we go from here over the next decade and beyond.</para>
<para>As Jim and I parted ways in parliament late last year, the warmth was there. The energy was growing dim, I must say, but he was still that same man that I'd met all those years ago as a cadet. I didn't know it at the time, but that was his way of saying goodbye. He was moving around the building giving people a warm smile and a big handshake, and that was his way of saying goodbye, knowing that end was near. He still had much to contribute to public life. I'm grateful for the ways he strengthened me and strengthened other colleagues. I'm grateful for the intellectual contribution he made to public life, and I think our nation has lost a great soldier, a thinker and a genuine and true servant of the Australian people. My thoughts and prayers remain with his wife, Anne; his children; and the broader Molan family.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to the condolence motion for Senator Jim Molan AO, DSC and in particular to offer my condolences to his wife, Anne, and children, Sarah, Erin, Felicity and Michael. Jim, obviously, had an extensive and truly remarkable career, and numerous speakers on this condolence motion have gone through that career over many decades and the extraordinary service to Australia that it entailed. But, while those career achievements are extraordinary, they are not the measure of the man. He was a much bigger figure than the sum of those achievements.</para>
<para>He showed incredible courage in his life in a way that few of us are ever required to. He had vision that few of us have—a capacity to see years ahead to the deepest strategic challenges facing Australia. And he had great decency. He cared about people. He was easy to talk to. He was unaffected by his high positions—he was never superior. He was always a very, very decent person. Most importantly, as the Leader of the Opposition observed, his greatest love was for his family, who are such a great credit to him. He was honest, decent and always willing to help others. He led a remarkable life, and he was a complete man. I wish his family my deepest condolences.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's an honour, albeit a very sad one, to make a contribution to this motion for our colleague Jim Molan AO, DSC. Jim was a soldier, a pilot, an author, a volunteer firefighter, a senator, a family man and somebody I was very proud to call my friend. He was born in Melbourne on 11 April 1950 to Noni and World War II veteran Andrew. Jim dreamt of being a soldier from his early days. In January 1968, during the Vietnam War, Jim was admitted to Duntroon—the very place we farewelled him only weeks ago, some 55 years later. Jim completed university degrees in arts and economics and later became fluent in Indonesian. He served in the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, rising through the ranks of the 1st, 3rd and 6th battalions to become a commanding officer.</para>
<para>His training was in companies intending to go to Vietnam, and Jim was keen to serve there. But when the conflict ended, he was given, as he called it, the 'consolation prize' of three years in Papua New Guinea during the country's transition to independence and its move towards a democratic system in 1975. It was the first of 35 moves to come for Jim, his wife, Anne, whom he met as an officer cadet and married in 1972, and their family. In 1992, as a colonel, Jim was posted to Jakarta as the Australian Defence Force attache, where he served until 1994. In 1998, as a brigadier, he returned to Jakarta as Defence Force attache for another two years, where he saw firsthand the chaos following the fall of President Suharto, the Asian financial crisis and East Timor's vote for independence.</para>
<para>In 1999, he joined the Australian Army deployment in East Timor. I was lucky enough to serve as Minister for Veterans' Affairs in a previous government, and Jim was keen to get me up to speed with his work there for reasons I will elaborate on shortly. He'd written about his experiences in East Timor, reasonably briefly, in his book, <inline font-style="italic">Running the War in Iraq</inline>. In August 2021, he dropped around a signed copy to my office here at Parliament House. Before signing the inside cover, he'd written the words, 'A soldier's story'. It certainly was that. I wasn't in the office at the time, but when I got back I immediately started flipping through the pages and came across a photo of a dashing young Jim about to join the Army. I sent him a text with the photo to thank him for the book but also stating that for a moment I thought I was reading <inline font-style="italic">GQ</inline> 1968. Jim texted back, 'God I was good-looking once,' before adding a series of laughing emojis, and then on a more serious note referring me to the pages on East Timor that he wanted me to read. He was warm and engaging and had a very dry, self-deprecating sense of humour. The reason he wanted me up to speed on East Timor was because, as a incredibly proud Australian, he strongly believed the story of the contribution of our nation and all who served there should be told.</para>
<para>One very important way that the stories of our overseas deployments are told is through Australia's official histories, and Jim came to see me about the official history relating to East Timor. The production of the official histories falls under the responsibility of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Jim was very concerned that the official histories were being blocked and that politics were at play, and Jim certainly knew a thing or two about that. Jim was diplomatic, but he suspected that the issue may have been that some in Australia's foreign policy establishment were concerned about the judgment of history and that it may not be a kind one. I believe that he was right about that and that the histories were in peril.</para>
<para>At Jim 's behest, I took a very strong interest in the progress of the histories and even obtained a draft to read. He was very passionate about this issue, as was his friend Tony Abbott. It took some wrangling and an interesting and illuminating journey through the workings of government, but the official histories eventually got moving. In December last year, <inline font-style="italic">Born of Fire and Ash: Australian operations in response to the East Timor crisis 1999</inline><inline font-style="italic">-</inline><inline font-style="italic">2000</inline> was published. I'm told it will be officially launched soon. It only came into existence because those like Jim Molan took a stand and felt fiercely and deeply that telling this story was the right thing to do. He did it for Australia and its veterans. And, when you step back and think about it, it's the story of how Australia, against the odds, ended up back on the right side of history, and Jim was very proud of that. And that was Jim.</para>
<para>Jim had great courage, both in the corridors of power in Canberra and out in the field. This was clearly demonstrated at Baucau Airport during the East Timor crisis when Jim saved the life of Bishop Belo and quite possibly many other evacuees. Jim was sent to organise the evacuation of UN workers and others, including the Bishop. Armed gangs of militia wanted the Bishop dead and weren't too keen on Australian soldiers either. The evacuees were to get out of Baucau on a couple of Australian C-130 Hercules, but the armed militia blocked the runway. The planes were going nowhere. It was tense—very tense. In a lengthy negotiation, an unarmed Jim faced the militia alone. At times, they drew weapons. As the day wore on, Jim negotiated for UN helicopters to come in and evacuate about 40 children and adults to Dili before all evacuees were allowed to board and the jam-packed planes eventually departed.</para>
<para>About 18 months ago I was in my office signing correspondence and had a documentary on in the background. It was called <inline font-style="italic">The Australian SAS: The untold history</inline>. The episode I saw was on East Timor. The documentary gave an account of the stand-off on the runway and how the militia fired off a few rounds at a departing Hercules as it headed to Darwin. When I saw Jim next, I asked about the documentary. When I suggested the whole thing must have been terrifying, he just chuckled and said words to the effect that he was just doing what he had to do, just doing his job and he hadn't seen the documentary. And that was definitely how he saw it. In his book, he recounted how, later that day, the satisfaction of the Prime Minister about the successful evacuation was passed on to him. Jim said he was amazed at how quickly he had moved it to the back of his mind, as they'd bounced from one drama to the next. It was just another day in East Timor.</para>
<para>That may be so, but I can tell you this: those evacuees were incredibly lucky to have had Brigadier Jim Molan in their corner that day. With so many civilians on board, as well as armed Australian SAS, the whole operation could easily have turned bad, very, very quickly.</para>
<para>Jim was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2000 and became Commander of the Australian Defence College. In 2004, he was posted to Baghdad as deputy chief of staff for operations for the new multinational force. Later, as chief of staff, he effectively commanded a force of approximately 300,000, including more than 130,000 Americans, with the rest drawn from Iraq and some 28 other nations. In Jim's words, his role was to run the war on behalf of the US general who was in charge. The Americans wanted to put a non-American face to the war, and Jim got the job. At one stage during his time in this role, he was commanding more troops than any Australian had since World War II.</para>
<para>And, if all those achievements weren't enough, Jim became Senator Molan in 2017, and his service to our nation continued. He had a great affinity and affection for the Central West of New South Wales, and he visited on a number of occasions. He was a passionate advocate for expanding Australia's defence manufacturing capability and self-reliance.</para>
<para>The general public of our region would not be aware, but Jim was also a passionate advocate for defence manufacturing in Lithgow at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. It has been making rifles for Australia since the First World War. When Jim heard that small arms manufacturing in Lithgow may be in peril, he immediately came to see me to let me know that he was in Lithgow's corner and that he was also in my corner. And he was true to his word. He was a powerful and energetic advocate for continuing manufacturing in the city. In so doing, he helped lay down a marker that defence manufacturing in Lithgow must not cease. The small arms factory in Lithgow remains, and, to this day, continues to play a vital role in our country's national security.</para>
<para>I was always very impressed with Jim's vast knowledge of the defence and security sectors. His knowledge was encyclopedic. I was frankly always baffled that his party never made more use of his huge talents. I know I'm not alone in these thoughts. Politics is not a meritocracy, and that's a shame.</para>
<para>The life of Jim Molan was truly extraordinary. He was a man of great courage, conviction and decency. I always enjoyed his company and hearing his insights and well-informed opinions. Determined to keep Australia strong and free, he brought unparalleled experience to our parliament. I respected him enormously. He was a great Australian who will be greatly missed. Farewell, Jim Molan. I convey the sincere and heartfelt condolences of the Calare electorate and our region to his family, friends and fellow veterans.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places, and I ask all present to do so.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">Honourable members having stood in their places—</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Federation Chamber.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHARLTON</name>
    <name.id>I8M</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That further proceedings be conducted in the House.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:24</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>